IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/the/publsh/596.html

Symmetry of evidence without evidence of symmetry

Author

Listed:
  • , G.

    (Department of Economics, Boston University)

  • ,

    (Department of Managerial Economics and Decision Sciences, Northwestern University)

Abstract

The de Finetti Theorem is a cornerstone of the Bayesian approach. Bernardo (1996) writes that its "message is very clear: if a sequence of observations is judged to be exchangeable, then any subset of them must be regarded as a random sample from some model, and there exists a prior distribution on the parameter of such model, hence requiring a Bayesian approach." We argue that while exchangeability, interpreted as symmetry of evidence, is a weak assumption, when combined with subjective expected utility theory, it implies also complete confidence that experiments are identical. When evidence is sparse, and there is little evidence of symmetry, this implication of de Finetti's hypotheses is not intuitive. This motivates our adoption of multiple-priors utility as the benchmark model of preference. We provide two alternative generalizations of the de Finetti Theorem for this framework. A model of updating is also provided.

Suggested Citation

  • , G. & ,, 2010. "Symmetry of evidence without evidence of symmetry," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 5(3), September.
  • Handle: RePEc:the:publsh:596
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://econtheory.org/ojs/index.php/te/article/viewFile/20100313/4288/155
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mongin Philippe, 1995. "Consistent Bayesian Aggregation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 313-351, August.
    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. Askoura, Youcef & Billot, Antoine, 2021. "Social decision for a measure society," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    2. Eric Danan & Thibault Gajdos & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2015. "Harsanyi's Aggregation Theorem with Incomplete Preferences," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(1), pages 61-69, February.
    3. Takashi Hayashi & Noriaki Kiguchi & Norio Takeoka, 2024. "Temptation and self‐control for the impure benevolent planner: The case of heterogeneous discounting," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 26(1), February.
    4. Florian Mudekereza, 2025. "Robust Aggregation of Preferences," Papers 2504.07401, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2026.
    5. Crès, Hervé & Tvede, Mich, 2022. "Aggregation of opinions in networks of individuals and collectives," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    6. Ed Cook & Jason R. W. Merrick, 2023. "Technology Implementation at Capital One," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 178-191, May.
    7. Christian Gollier, 2007. "Whom should we believe? Aggregation of heterogeneous beliefs," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 107-127, October.
    8. Kolm, Serge-Christophe, 1998. "Chance and justice: Social policies and the Harsanyi-Vickrey-Rawls problem," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(8), pages 1393-1416, September.
    9. Bach Dong-Xuan, 2024. "Aggregation of misspecified experts," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 78(3), pages 923-943, November.
    10. Thibault Gajdos & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2013. "Decisions with conflicting and imprecise information," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(2), pages 427-452, July.
    11. Leandro Nascimento, 2025. "On the stability of utilitarian aggregation," Papers 2504.17061, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2026.
    12. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2017. "Probabilistic opinion pooling generalized. Part one: general agendas," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(4), pages 747-786, April.
    13. Sujoy Mukerji & Han N. Ozsoylev & Jean‐Marc Tallon, 2023. "Trading Ambiguity: A Tale Of Two Heterogeneities," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 64(3), pages 1127-1164, August.
    14. Federica Ceron & Vassili Vergopoulos, 2017. "Aggregation of Bayesian preferences: Unanimity vs Monotonicity," Post-Print halshs-01539444, HAL.
    15. McCarthy, David & Mikkola, Kalle & Thomas, Teruji, 2016. "Utilitarianism with and without expected utility," MPRA Paper 72578, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Christian Heyerdahl-Larsen & Johan Walden, 2023. "On efficiency in disagreement economies," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(4), pages 763-799, November.
    17. Eric Danan & Thibault Gajdos & Brian Hill & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2016. "Robust Social Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(9), pages 2407-2425, September.
    18. Dietrich, F.K. & List, C., 2008. "The aggregation of propositional attitudes: towards a general theory," Research Memorandum 047, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    19. Marcus Pivato, 2013. "Voting rules as statistical estimators," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(2), pages 581-630, February.
    20. Franz Dietrich, 2010. "Bayesian group belief," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(4), pages 595-626, October.

    More about this item

    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:the:publsh:596. 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.