IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/the/publsh/5404.html

Expected balanced uncertain utility

Author

Listed:
  • Grant, Simon

    (Research School of Economics, Australian National University)

  • Roorda, Berend

    (Department of Economics, University Twente)

  • Yang, Jingni

    (School of Economics, University of Sydney)

Abstract

We introduce and analyze expected balanced uncertain utility (EBUU) theory. A prior and a balanced outcome-set utility characterize an EBUU decision maker. Conditional on a reference or ``balancing value'', the latter assigns a utility to each outcome-set. The decision maker associates with each act, its envelope, the minimal measurable mapping from states to outcome-sets that contains the act. She then (implicitly) ranks an act according to the balancing value at which the expected balanced utility of its associated envelope is zero. As a consequence her risk preferences need only exhibit betweenness allowing or behavior that can accommodate Allais-type paradoxes.

Suggested Citation

  • Grant, Simon & Roorda, Berend & Yang, Jingni, 2025. "Expected balanced uncertain utility," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 20(1), January.
    • Handle: RePEc:the:publsh:5404
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://econtheory.org/ojs/index.php/te/article/viewFile/20250001/41150/1257
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jiankang Zhang, 2002. "Subjective ambiguity, expected utility and Choquet expected utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 20(1), pages 159-181.
    2. Grant, Simon, 1995. "Subjective Probability without Monotonicity: Or How Machina's Mom May Also Be Probabilistically Sophisticated," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(1), pages 159-189, January.
    3. Dekel, Eddie, 1986. "An axiomatic characterization of preferences under uncertainty: Weakening the independence axiom," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 304-318, December.
    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. Skiadas, Costis, 1997. "Subjective Probability under Additive Aggregation of Conditional Preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 242-271, October.
    2. Sandroni Alvaro & Ludwig Sandra & Kircher Philipp, 2013. "On the Difference between Social and Private Goods," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 151-177, June.
    3. Kopylov, Igor, 2007. "Subjective probabilities on "small" domains," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 133(1), pages 236-265, March.
    4. Chew, Soo Hong & Sagi, Jacob S., 2012. "An inequality measure for stochastic allocations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(4), pages 1517-1544.
    5. Grant, Simon & Kajii, Atsushi & Polak, Ben, 2000. "Decomposable Choice under Uncertainty," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 92(2), pages 169-197, June.
    6. Chew, Soo Hong & Wang, Wenqian, 2020. "On the robustness of indeterminacy in subjective probability," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    7. Cerreia-Vioglio, Simone & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo & Montrucchio, Luigi, 2012. "Probabilistic sophistication, second order stochastic dominance and uncertainty aversion," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 271-283.
    8. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    9. Uzi Segal, 2021. "For all or exists?," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 1034, Boston College Department of Economics.
    10. Kemal Ozbek, 2024. "Expected utility, independence, and continuity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 97(1), pages 1-22, August.
    11. Marc Fleurbaey, 2010. "Assessing Risky Social Situations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 118(4), pages 649-680, August.
    12. Uri Gneezy & Yoram Halevy & Brian Hall & Theo Offerman & Jeroen van de Ven, 2024. "How Real is Hypothetical? A High-Stakes Test of the Allais Paradox," Working Papers tecipa-783, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    13. Raquel M. Gaspar & Paulo M. Silva, 2023. "Investors’ perspective on portfolio insurance," Portuguese Economic Journal, Springer;Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestao, vol. 22(1), pages 49-79, January.
    14. Diecidue, E. & Schmidt, U. & Wakker, P.P., 2000. "A Theory of the Gambling Effect," Discussion Paper 2000-75, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    15. Gul, Faruk & Pesendorfer, Wolfgang, 2015. "Hurwicz expected utility and subjective sources," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PA), pages 465-488.
    16. Neilson, William S., 1992. "A mixed fan hypothesis and its implications for behavior toward risk," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 197-211, October.
    17. Alain Chateauneuf & Luciano De Castro, 2011. "Ambiguity Aversion and Absence of Trade," Discussion Papers 1535, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    18. Klaus Nehring, 2006. "Decision-Making in the Context of Imprecise Probabilistic Beliefs," Economics Working Papers 0034, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
    19. Aluma Dembo & Shachar Kariv & Matthew Polisson & John Quah, 2021. "Ever since Allais," IFS Working Papers W21/15, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    20. Soham R. Phade & Venkat Anantharam, 2020. "Black-Box Strategies and Equilibrium for Games with Cumulative Prospect Theoretic Players," Papers 2004.09592, arXiv.org.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General
    • 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:the:publsh:5404. 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: Editor Theoretical Economics The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Editor Theoretical Economics to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://econtheory.org .

    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.