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. Chew, Soo Hong, 1983. "A Generalization of the Quasilinear Mean with Applications to the Measurement of Income Inequality and Decision Theory Resolving the Allais Paradox," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(4), pages 1065-1092, July.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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. Grant, Simon & Kajii, Atsushi & Polak, Ben, 2000. "Decomposable Choice under Uncertainty," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 92(2), pages 169-197, June.
    2. Soo Hong Chew & Jacob S. Sagi & Wenqian Wang, 2025. "An exchangeability-based finite-state axiomatization of subjective probability," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 80(3), pages 685-702, November.
    3. 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.
    4. Chew, Soo Hong & Wang, Wenqian, 2020. "On the robustness of indeterminacy in subjective probability," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    5. Uzi Segal, 2021. "For all or exists?," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 1034, Boston College Department of Economics.
    6. Kemal Ozbek, 2024. "Expected utility, independence, and continuity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 97(1), pages 1-22, August.
    7. 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.
    8. Skiadas, Costis, 1997. "Subjective Probability under Additive Aggregation of Conditional Preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 242-271, October.
    9. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2005. "Are Universal Preferences Possible? Calibration Results for Non-Expected Utility Theories," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 633, Boston College Department of Economics.
    10. Bin Miao & Songfa Zhong, 2018. "Probabilistic social preference: how Machina’s Mom randomizes her choice," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 65(1), pages 1-24, January.
    11. Kam Yu, 2009. "Measuring the Output and Prices of the Lottery Sector: An Application of Implicit Expected Utility Theory," NBER Chapters, in: Price Index Concepts and Measurement, pages 405-425, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Collin Raymond & Yangwei Song, 2026. "Risk and Monotone Comparative Statics without Independence," Papers 2601.10664, arXiv.org.
    13. Marilyn Pease & Mark Whitmeyer, 2024. "How to Make an Action Better," Papers 2408.09294, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2025.
    14. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    15. Grant, Simon & Karni, Edi, 2004. "A theory of quantifiable beliefs," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 515-546, August.
    16. Ma, Chenghu & Wong, Wing-Keung, 2010. "Stochastic dominance and risk measure: A decision-theoretic foundation for VaR and C-VaR," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(2), pages 927-935, December.
    17. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2020. "Calibration Results for Incomplete Preferences," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 71(2), pages 323-330.
    18. Svetlana Pashchenko & Ponpoje Porapakkarm, 2022. "Value of life and annuity demand," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 89(2), pages 371-396, June.
    19. Eddie Dekel & Barton L. Lipman, 2010. "How (Not) to Do Decision Theory," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 257-282, September.
    20. Syngjoo Choi & Raymond Fisman & Douglas Gale & Shachar Kariv, 2007. "Consistency and Heterogeneity of Individual Behavior under Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1921-1938, December.

    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.