IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v95y2007i1p39-47.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The epsilon-Gini-contamination multiple priors model admits a linear-mean-standard-deviation utility representation

Author

Listed:
  • Grant, Simon
  • Kajii, Atsushi

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Grant, Simon & Kajii, Atsushi, 2007. "The epsilon-Gini-contamination multiple priors model admits a linear-mean-standard-deviation utility representation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 39-47, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:95:y:2007:i:1:p:39-47
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165-1765(06)00314-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    2. Quiggin, John & Chambers, R.G.Robert G., 2004. "Invariant risk attitudes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 117(1), pages 96-118, July.
    3. Quiggin, John & Chambers, Robert G, 1998. "Risk Premiums and Benefit Measures for Generalized-Expected-Utility Theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 121-137, November.
    4. Machina, Mark J & Schmeidler, David, 1992. "A More Robust Definition of Subjective Probability," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(4), pages 745-780, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Qu, Xiangyu, 2017. "Subjective mean–variance preferences without expected utility," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 31-39.
    2. Marciano Siniscalchi, 2009. "Vector Expected Utility and Attitudes Toward Variation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(3), pages 801-855, May.
    3. Grant, Simon & Polak, Ben, 2013. "Mean-dispersion preferences and constant absolute uncertainty aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(4), pages 1361-1398.
    4. Mark Schneider & Jonathan W. Leland & Nathaniel T. Wilcox, 2018. "Ambiguity framed," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(2), pages 133-151, October.
      • Mark Schneider & Jonathan Leland & Nathaniel T. Wilcox, 2016. "Ambiguity Framed," Working Papers 16-11, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    5. Ghirardato, Paolo & Pennesi, Daniele, 2020. "A general theory of subjective mixtures," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).

    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. Chambers, Robert G. & Grant, Simon & Polak, Ben & Quiggin, John, 2014. "A two-parameter model of dispersion aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 611-641.
    2. Juan Sebastián Lleras & Evan Piermont & Richard Svoboda, 2019. "Asymmetric gain–loss reference dependence and attitudes toward uncertainty," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(3), pages 669-699, October.
    3. Chateauneuf, Alain & Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon, 2007. "Choice under uncertainty with the best and worst in mind: Neo-additive capacities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 538-567, November.
    4. Ghirardato, Paolo & Marinacci, Massimo, 2002. "Ambiguity Made Precise: A Comparative Foundation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 251-289, February.
    5. Jewitt, Ian & Mukerji, Sujoy, 2017. "Ordering ambiguous acts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 213-267.
    6. Yoram Halevy & Vincent Feltkamp, 2005. "A Bayesian Approach to Uncertainty Aversion," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 72(2), pages 449-466.
    7. Fleurbaey, Marc & Zuber, Stéphane, 2017. "Fair management of social risk," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 666-706.
    8. Robert G. Chambers & John Quiggin, 2007. "Dual Approaches to the Analysis of Risk Aversion," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 74(294), pages 189-213, May.
    9. John Quiggin, 2022. "Production under uncertainty and choice under uncertainty in the emergence of generalized expected utility theory," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 717-729, April.
    10. Klaus Nehring, 2006. "Decision-Making in the Context of Imprecise Probabilistic Beliefs," Economics Working Papers 0034, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
    11. Amit Kothiyal & Vitalie Spinu & Peter Wakker, 2014. "An experimental test of prospect theory for predicting choice under ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 1-17, February.
    12. Dominiak, Adam & Tserenjigmid, Gerelt, 2022. "Ambiguity under growing awareness," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    13. Chambers, Christopher P. & Hayashi, Takashi, 2006. "Preference aggregation under uncertainty: Savage vs. Pareto," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 430-440, February.
    14. Qu, Xiangyu, 2017. "Subjective mean–variance preferences without expected utility," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 31-39.
    15. Dietz, Simon & Walker, Oliver, 2017. "Ambiguity and insurance: capital requirements andpremiums," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 68469, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Xiangyu Qu, 2015. "A belief-based definition of ambiguity aversion," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(1), pages 15-30, July.
    17. Evren, Özgür, 2019. "Recursive non-expected utility: Connecting ambiguity attitudes to risk preferences and the level of ambiguity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 285-307.
    18. Bleichrodt, Han & Eichberger, Jürgen & Grant, Simon & Kelsey, David & Li, Chen, 2021. "Testing dynamic consistency and consequentialism under ambiguity," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    19. Lo, Kin Chung, 2009. "Correlated Nash equilibrium," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(2), pages 722-743, March.
    20. Brighton, Henry, 2020. "Statistical foundations of ecological rationality," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 14, pages 1-32.

    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:eee:ecolet:v:95:y:2007:i:1:p:39-47. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet .

    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.