IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/theord/v74y2013i3p439-445.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A note on “Re-examining the law of iterated expectations for Choquet decision makers”

Author

Listed:
  • André Lapied
  • Pascal Toquebeuf

Abstract

This note completes the main result of Zimper (Theory and decision, doi: 10.1007/s11238-010-9221-8 , 2010 ), by showing that additional conditions are needed in order the law of iterated expectations to hold true for Choquet decision makers. Due to the comonotonic additivity of Choquet expectations, the equation E[f, ν(dω)]=E[E[f(ω i, j ), ν(A i, j |A i )], ν(A i )], is valid only when the act f is comonotonic with its dynamic form, that we name “conditional certainty equivalent act”. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Suggested Citation

  • André Lapied & Pascal Toquebeuf, 2013. "A note on “Re-examining the law of iterated expectations for Choquet decision makers”," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(3), pages 439-445, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:74:y:2013:i:3:p:439-445
    DOI: 10.1007/s11238-012-9297-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11238-012-9297-4
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11238-012-9297-4?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yoo, Keuk-Ryoul, 1991. "The iterative law of expectation and non-additive probability measure," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 145-149, October.
    2. André Lapied & Pascal Toquebeuf, 2010. "Atemporal non-expected utility preferences, dynamic consistency and consequentialism," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 30(2), pages 1661-1669.
    3. Epstein, Larry G. & Schneider, Martin, 2003. "Recursive multiple-priors," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 1-31, November.
    4. Sarin, Rakesh & Wakker, Peter P, 1998. "Revealed Likelihood and Knightian Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 223-250, July-Aug..
    5. Alexander Zimper, 2011. "Re-examining the law of iterated expectations for Choquet decision makers," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 669-677, October.
    6. Nobuo Koida, 2012. "Nest-monotonic two-stage acts and exponential probability capacities," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 50(1), pages 99-124, May.
    7. Alain Chateauneuf & Robert Kast & André Lapied, 2001. "Conditioning Capacities and Choquet Integrals: The Role of Comonotony," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 367-386, December.
    8. André Lapied & Pascal Toquebeuf, 2010. "Atemporal non-expected utility preferences, dynamic consistency and consequentialism," Post-Print hal-03217049, HAL.
    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. André Lapied & Pascal Toquebeuf, 2011. "Dynamically consistent CEU preferences," Working Papers halshs-00856193, HAL.
    2. Giulianella Coletti & Davide Petturiti & Barbara Vantaggi, 2019. "Dutch book rationality conditions for conditional preferences under ambiguity," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 279(1), pages 115-150, August.
    3. Lapied, André & Toquebeuf, Pascal, 2012. "Dynamically consistent CEU preferences on f-convex events," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 252-256.
    4. Rossella Agliardi, 2017. "Asymmetric Choquet random walks and ambiguity aversion or seeking," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(4), pages 591-602, December.

    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. Lapied, André & Toquebeuf, Pascal, 2012. "Dynamically consistent CEU preferences on f-convex events," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 252-256.
    2. André Lapied & Pascal Toquebeuf, 2011. "Dynamically consistent CEU preferences," Working Papers halshs-00856193, HAL.
    3. Dominiak, Adam, 2013. "Iterated Choquet expectations: A possibility result," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 120(2), pages 155-159.
    4. Alex Stomper & Marie‐Louise Vierø, 2022. "Iterated expectations under rank‐dependent expected utility and implications for common valuation methods," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(2), pages 739-763, May.
    5. Zimper, Alexander, 2012. "Asset pricing in a Lucas fruit-tree economy with the best and worst in mind," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 610-628.
    6. Alexander Ludwig & Alexander Zimper, 2013. "A decision-theoretic model of asset-price underreaction and overreaction to dividend news," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 625-665, November.
    7. Eichberger, Jürgen & Grant, Simon & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2008. "Neo-additive capacities and updating," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 08-31, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    8. Alexander Zimper, 2011. "Do Bayesians Learn Their Way Out of Ambiguity?," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 269-285, December.
    9. Alexander Zimper & Alexander Ludwig, 2009. "On attitude polarization under Bayesian learning with non-additive beliefs," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 181-212, October.
    10. Kishishita, Daiki, 2020. "(Not) delegating decisions to experts: The effect of uncertainty," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    11. Zimper, Alexander, 2009. "Half empty, half full and why we can agree to disagree forever," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 283-299, August.
    12. Massimo Marinacci & Giulio Principi & Lorenzo Stanca, 2023. "Recursive Preferences and Ambiguity Attitudes," Papers 2304.06830, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2024.
    13. André Lapied & Pascal Tocquebeuf, 2007. "Consistent Dynamice Choice And Non-Expected Utility Preferences," Working Papers halshs-00353880, HAL.
    14. Nobuo Koida, 2012. "Nest-monotonic two-stage acts and exponential probability capacities," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 50(1), pages 99-124, May.
    15. Chambers, Robert G. & Melkonyan, Tigran, 2009. "Smoothing preference kinks with information," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 173-189, September.
    16. Massimo Marinacci & Giulio Principi & Lorenzo Stanca, 2023. "Recursive Preferences and Ambiguity Attitudes," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 695 JEL Classification: C, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
    17. Giulianella Coletti & Davide Petturiti & Barbara Vantaggi, 2019. "Dutch book rationality conditions for conditional preferences under ambiguity," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 279(1), pages 115-150, August.
    18. Marinacci Massimo & Principi Giulio & Stanca Lorenzo, 2023. "Recursive Preferences and Ambiguity Attitudes," Working papers 082, Department of Economics, Social Studies, Applied Mathematics and Statistics (Dipartimento di Scienze Economico-Sociali e Matematico-Statistiche), University of Torino.
    19. Serena Doria, 2017. "On the disintegration property of coherent upper conditional prevision defined by the Choquet integral with respect to its associated Hausdorff outer measure," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 256(2), pages 253-269, September.
    20. Aliyev, Nihad & He, Xue-Zhong, 2023. "Ambiguous price formation," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Choquet; Capacities; Updating; Law of iterated expectations; D81;
    All these keywords.

    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:kap:theord:v:74:y:2013:i:3:p:439-445. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.