IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bos/wpaper/wp2010-030.html

Intertemporal substitution and recursive smooth ambiguity preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Jianjun Miao

    (Department of Economics, Boston University, CEMA, Central University of Finance and Economics, and AFR, Zhejiang University)

  • Takashi Hayashi

    (Department of Economics, University of Texas at Austin)

Abstract

In this paper, we establish an axiomatically founded generalized recursive smooth ambiguity model that allows for a separation among intertemporal substitution, risk aversion, and ambiguity aversion. We axiomatize this model using two approaches: the second-order act approach à la Klibanoff et al. (2005) and the twostage randomization approach à la Seo (2009). We characterize risk attitude and ambiguity attitude within these two approaches. We then discuss our model’s application in asset pricing. Our recursive preference model nests some popular models in the literature as special cases.

Suggested Citation

  • Jianjun Miao & Takashi Hayashi, 2010. "Intertemporal substitution and recursive smooth ambiguity preferences," Boston University - Department of Economics - Working Papers Series WP2010-030, Boston University - Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:bos:wpaper:wp2010-030
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Segal, Uzi, 1987. "The Ellsberg Paradox and Risk Aversion: An Anticipated Utility Approach," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 28(1), pages 175-202, February.
    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. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Peter Klibanoff & Lætitia Placido, 2015. "Experiments on Compound Risk in Relation to Simple Risk and to Ambiguity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1306-1322, June.
    2. Riddel, Mary C. & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2006. "A Theoretically-Consistent Empirical Non-Expected Utility Model of Ambiguity: Nuclear Waste Mortality Risk and Yucca Mountain," Pre-Prints 23964, Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    3. Anna Conte & John D. Hey, 2018. "Assessing multiple prior models of behaviour under ambiguity," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 7, pages 169-188, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. David Ahn & Syngjoo Choi & Douglas Gale & Shachar Kariv, 2014. "Estimating ambiguity aversion in a portfolio choice experiment," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 5, pages 195-223, July.
    5. Mr. S. Nuri Erbas, 2003. "Imf Conditionality and Program Ownership: A Case for Streamlined Conditionality," IMF Working Papers 2003/098, International Monetary Fund.
    6. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Enrico Diecidue & Emmanuel Kemel & Ayse Onculer, 2022. "Temporal Risk: Utility vs. Probability Weighting," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(7), pages 5162-5186, July.
    7. 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.
    8. Safra, Zvi & Segal, Uzi, 2022. "A lot of ambiguity," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    9. Frick, Mira & Iijima, Ryota & Le Yaouanq, Yves, 2019. "Boolean Representations of Preferences under Ambiguity," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 173, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    10. Evren, Özgür, 2019. "Recursive non-expected utility: Connecting ambiguity attitudes to risk preferences and the level of ambiguity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 285-307.
    11. David Buschena & David Zilberman, 2008. "Generalized expected utility, heteroscedastic error, and path dependence in risky choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 201-201, April.
    12. Li, Jiangyan & Fairley, Kim & Fenneman, Achiel, 2024. "Does it matter how we produce ambiguity in experiments?," MPRA Paper 122336, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Mira Frick & Ryota Iijima & Yves Le Yaouanq, 2019. "Dispersed Behavior and Perceptions in Assortative Societies," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2180, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    14. Yoram Halevy & Emre Ozdenoren, 2022. "Uncertainty and compound lotteries: calibration," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 74(2), pages 373-395, September.
    15. Madhav Chandrasekher & Mira Frick & Ryota Iijima & Yves Le Yaouanq, 2022. "Dual‐Self Representations of Ambiguity Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(3), pages 1029-1061, May.
    16. Beggs, Alan, 2021. "Games with second-order expected utility," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 569-590.
    17. Edi Karni, 2024. "Ambiguity aversion, risk aversion, and the weight of evidence," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 97(4), pages 595-611, December.
    18. Mr. S. Nuri Erbas, 2004. "Ambiguity, Transparency, and Institutional Strength," IMF Working Papers 2004/115, International Monetary Fund.
    19. Dillenberger, David & Segal, Uzi, 2017. "Skewed noise," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 344-364.
    20. Strobl, Renate, 2022. "Background risk, insurance and investment behaviour: Experimental evidence from Kenya," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 34-68.

    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
    • D90 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - General

    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:bos:wpaper:wp2010-030. 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: Program Coordinator (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/decbuus.html .

    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.