IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v25y1994i3p437-457.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing choquet expected utility

Author

Listed:
  • Mangelsdorff, Lukas
  • Weber, Martin

Abstract

Many theories have been developed to model decision behavior under ambiguity. In this paper we empirically investigate theories which are based on non-additive probabilities, i.e. Choquet expected utility (CEU) theories. We first replicated Ellsberg-paradox behavior. Then we elicited the individual non-additive probabilities, the so called capacities. Those capacities did not have all properties theoretically required. Finally we found that CEU is not really superior to EU in predicting the participants' decisions.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Mangelsdorff, Lukas & Weber, Martin, 1994. "Testing choquet expected utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 437-457, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:25:y:1994:i:3:p:437-457
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0167-2681(94)90109-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Alex Voorhoeve & Ken Binmore & Arnaldur Stefansson & Lisa Stewart, 2016. "Ambiguity attitudes, framing, and consistency," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(3), pages 313-337, September.
    2. Michael Kilka & Martin Weber, 2001. "What Determines the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function Under Uncertainty?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(12), pages 1712-1726, December.
    3. Robert Chambers & Tigran Melkonyan, 2008. "Eliciting beliefs," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 65(4), pages 271-284, December.
    4. Gijs van de Kuilen & Peter P. Wakker, 2011. "The Midweight Method to Measure Attitudes Toward Risk and Ambiguity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(3), pages 582-598, March.
    5. Weber, Martin & Keppe, Hans-Jurgen & Meyer-Delius, Gabriela, 2000. "The impact of endowment framing on market prices -- an experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 159-176, February.
    6. Kozhan, Roman & Salmon, Mark, 2009. "Uncertainty aversion in a heterogeneous agent model of foreign exchange rate formation," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 1106-1122, May.
    7. Roman Kozhan & Mark Salmon, 2007. "Uncertainty Aversion in an Agent-Based Model of Foreign Exchange Rate Formation," Working Papers wpn07-06, Warwick Business School, Finance Group.
    8. Lahno, Amrei M., 2014. "Social anchor effects in decision-making under ambiguity," Discussion Papers in Economics 20960, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    9. Irma Machielse & Danielle Timmermans & Peter Wakker, 2007. "The effects of statistical information on risk ambiguity attitudes, and on rational insurance decisions," Natural Field Experiments 00338, The Field Experiments Website.
    10. Laure Cabantous & Denis Hilton, 2006. "De l'aversion à l'ambiguïté aux attitudes face à l'ambiguïté. Les apports d'une perspective psychologique en économie," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 57(2), pages 259-280.
    11. Peter P. Wakker & Daniëlle R. M. Timmermans & Irma Machielse, 2007. "The Effects of Statistical Information on Risk and Ambiguity Attitudes, and on Rational Insurance Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(11), pages 1770-1784, November.
    12. Budescu, David V. & Kuhn, Kristine M. & Kramer, Karen M. & Johnson, Timothy R., 2002. "Modeling certainty equivalents for imprecise gambles," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 748-768, July.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:jeborg:v:25:y:1994:i:3:p:437-457. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.