IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/bejtec/v16y2016i2p437-454n11.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the Rejectability of the Subjective Expected Utility Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Grabiszewski Konrad

    (Department of Economics, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33124, USA)

Abstract

State space, a key element of the Subjective Expected Utility (SEU) theory, is not observable. This implies that, in order to test the SEU theory, it is necessary to assume some state space. Consequently, if the SEU theory is rejected, then it is appropriate to conduct a robustness check; that is, to search for a different state space and a probability over that state space which together do not lead to the rejection of the SEU theory. To find such state space and probability means to SEU-rationalize the agent’s behavior. I show how to conduct the process of SEU-rationalization and determine when an SEU-rationalization is possible.

Suggested Citation

  • Grabiszewski Konrad, 2016. "On the Rejectability of the Subjective Expected Utility Theory," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 16(2), pages 437-454, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:bejtec:v:16:y:2016:i:2:p:437-454:n:11
    DOI: 10.1515/bejte-2015-0074
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/bejte-2015-0074
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/bejte-2015-0074?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Massimiliano AMARANTE, 2014. "What is Ambiguity?," Cahiers de recherche 04-2014, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    2. Burkhard Schipper, 2013. "Awareness-dependent subjective expected utility," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 42(3), pages 725-753, August.
    3. Gilboa,Itzhak, 2009. "Theory of Decision under Uncertainty," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521517324.
    4. Bossert, Walter, 1989. "On the extension of preferences over a set to the power set: An axiomatic characterization of a quasi-ordering," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 84-92, October.
    5. Nehring, Klaus & Puppe, Clemens, 1996. "Continuous Extensions of an Order on a Set to the Power Set," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 456-479, February.
    6. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    7. Kannai, Yakar & Peleg, Bezalel, 1984. "A note on the extension of an order on a set to the power set," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 172-175, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Barbera, S. & Bossert, W. & Pattanaik, P.K., 2001. "Ranking Sets of Objects," Cahiers de recherche 2001-02, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    2. BOSSERT, Walter & SLINKO, Arkadii, 2004. "Relative Uncertainty and Additively Representable Set Rankings," Cahiers de recherche 2004-13, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
    3. Ballester, Miguel A. & de Miguel, Juan R. & Nieto, Jorge, 2004. "Set comparisons in a general domain: the Indirect Utility Criterion," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 139-150, September.
    4. Stefan Maus & Hans Peters & Ton Storcken, 2006. "Strategy-proof voting for single issues and cabinets," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 126(1), pages 27-43, January.
    5. Ekaterina Svetlova & Henk van Elst, 2014. "Decision-theoretic approaches to non-knowledge in economics," Papers 1407.0787, arXiv.org.
    6. Bossert, Walter, 1997. "Uncertainty aversion in nonprobabilistic decision models," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 191-203, October.
    7. Podinovski, Vladislav V., 2010. "Set choice problems with incomplete information about the preferences of the decision maker," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(1), pages 371-379, November.
    8. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2019. "What are axiomatizations good for?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 339-359, May.
    9. Gilboa, Itzhak & Samuelson, Larry & Schmeidler, David, 2013. "Dynamics of inductive inference in a unified framework," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(4), pages 1399-1432.
    10. Junyi Chai & Zhiquan Weng & Wenbin Liu, 2021. "Behavioral Decision Making in Normative and Descriptive Views: A Critical Review of Literature," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-14, October.
    11. Crès, Hervé & Tvede, Mich, 2022. "Aggregation of opinions in networks of individuals and collectives," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    12. Basieva, Irina & Khrennikova, Polina & Pothos, Emmanuel M. & Asano, Masanari & Khrennikov, Andrei, 2018. "Quantum-like model of subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 150-162.
    13. Faro, José Heleno & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2019. "Dynamic objective and subjective rationality," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(1), January.
    14. Heyen, Daniel, 2018. "Ambiguity aversion under maximum-likelihood updating," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 80342, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Takao Asano & Xiaojing Cai & Ryuta Sakemoto, 2023. "Time-varying ambiguity shocks and business cycles," KIER Working Papers 1094, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    16. Klaus Nehring, 2003. "Preference for Flexibility and Freedom of Choice in a Savage Framework," Working Papers 51, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    17. Takao Asano & Hiroyuki Kojima, 2022. "Choquet Integrals and Belief Functions," KIER Working Papers 1077, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    18. Wolitzky, Alexander, 2016. "Mechanism design with maxmin agents: theory and an application to bilateral trade," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 11(3), September.
    19. Alfonsi, Aurélien, 2015. "A simple proof for the convexity of the Choquet integral," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 22-25.
    20. Xiangyu Qu, 2017. "Separate aggregation of beliefs and values under ambiguity," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 63(2), pages 503-519, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:bejtec:v:16:y:2016:i:2:p:437-454:n:11. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.