IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jetheo/v158y2015ipap33-53.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Subjective independence and concave expected utility

Author

Listed:
  • Lehrer, Ehud
  • Teper, Roee

Abstract

When a potential hedge between alternatives does not reduce the exposure to uncertainty, we say that the decision maker considers these alternatives structurally similar. We offer a novel approach and suggest that structural similarity is subjective and should be different across decision makers. Structural similarity can be recovered through a property of the individual's preferences referred to as subjective codecomposable independence. This property characterizes a class of event-separable models and allows us to differentiate between perception of uncertainty and attitude towards it. In addition, our approach provides a behavioral foundation to Concave Expected Utility preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Lehrer, Ehud & Teper, Roee, 2015. "Subjective independence and concave expected utility," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 158(PA), pages 33-53.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jetheo:v:158:y:2015:i:pa:p:33-53
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jet.2015.03.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002205311500054X
    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. Mark J. Machina, 2009. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Rank-Dependence Axioms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(1), pages 385-392, March.
    2. Ehud Lehrer, 2009. "A new integral for capacities," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 39(1), pages 157-176, April.
    3. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    4. David Dillenberger & Uzi Segal, 2015. "Recursive Ambiguity And Machina'S Examples," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 56, pages 55-61, February.
    5. Marciano Siniscalchi, 2009. "Vector Expected Utility and Attitudes Toward Variation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(3), pages 801-855, May.
    6. Yaarit Even & Ehud Lehrer, 2014. "Decomposition-integral: unifying Choquet and the concave integrals," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(1), pages 33-58, May.
    7. Chateauneuf, Alain & Faro, José Heleno, 2009. "Ambiguity through confidence functions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(9-10), pages 535-558, September.
    8. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    9. Castagnoli, Erio & Maccheroni, Fabio, 2000. "Restricting independence to convex cones," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 215-223, October.
    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. Roee Teper, 2014. "Sandwich Games," Working Paper 5863, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh.
    2. Abhinash Borah & Christopher Kops, 2016. "The Anscombe–Aumann representation and the independence axiom: a reconsideration," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(2), pages 211-226, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Subjective independence; Codecomposable independence; Concave expected utility; Choquet expected utility; Uncertainty aversion; Machina paradox;

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness

    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:jetheo:v:158:y:2015:i:pa:p:33-53. 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/inca/622869 .

    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 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.

    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.