We provide a characterization of the consequences of the assumption that a decision maker with a given utility function is Choquet rational: She maximizes expected utility, but possibly with respect to non-additive beliefs, so that her preferences are represented by Choquet expected utility (CEU). The characterization shows that this notion of rationality allows in generalto rationalize more choices than it is possible when beliefs have to be additive. More surprisingly, we find that a considerable restriction on the types of beliefs allowed does not change the set of rational actions. We then remark on the relation between the predictions of CEU model, of a similar model (the maxmin expected utility model), and those of subjective expected utility when the risk attitude of the decision maker is not known. We close with an application of the result to the definition of a solution concept (in the spirit of rationalizability) for strategic-form games.
|Date of creation:||01 Feb 1999|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Voie du Roman Pays 34, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium)|
Fax: +32 10474304
Web page: http://www.uclouvain.be/core
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Epstein, Larry G & Wang, Tan, 1996. ""Beliefs about Beliefs" without Probabilities," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(6), pages 1343-73, November.
- Dow, James & Werlang, Sérgio Ribeiro da Costa, 1992.
"Nash equilibrium under knightian uncertainty: breaking-down backward induction,"
Economics Working Papers (Ensaios Economicos da EPGE)
186, FGV/EPGE Escola Brasileira de Economia e Finanças, Getulio Vargas Foundation (Brazil).
- Dow James & Werlang Sergio Ribeiro Da Costa, 1994. "Nash Equilibrium under Knightian Uncertainty: Breaking Down Backward Induction," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 305-324, December.
- Ebbe Hendon & Hans Jorgen Jacobsen & Birgitte Sloth & Torben Tranaes, 1995. "NASH Equilibrium in Lower Probabilities," Discussion Papers 95-09, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
- Machina,Mark & Schmeidler,David, 1991.
"A more robust definition of subjective probability,"
Discussion Paper Serie A
365, University of Bonn, Germany.
- Machina, Mark J & Schmeidler, David, 1992. "A More Robust Definition of Subjective Probability," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(4), pages 745-80, July.
- Mark J. Machina & David Schmeidler, 1990. "A More Robust Definition of Subjective Probability," Discussion Paper Serie A 306, University of Bonn, Germany.
- Itzhak Gilboa & David Schmeidler, 1989.
"Maxmin Expected Utility with Non-Unique Prior,"
- David Schmeidler, 1989.
"Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
7662, David K. Levine.
- Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-87, May.
- Wakker, Peter, 1989. "Continuous subjective expected utility with non-additive probabilities," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 1-27, February.
- Ghirardato, Paolo & Marinacci, Massimo, 2002. "Ambiguity Made Precise: A Comparative Foundation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 251-289, February.
- Peter Kilbanoff, 1996. "Characterizing Uncertainty Aversion Through Preference for Mixtures," Discussion Papers 1159, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Gilboa, Itzhak, 1987.
"Expected utility with purely subjective non-additive probabilities,"
Journal of Mathematical Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 65-88, February.
- Itzhak Gilboa, 1987. "Expected Utility with Purely Subjective Non-Additive Probabilities," Post-Print hal-00756291, HAL.
- Martin J Osborne & Ariel Rubinstein, 2009.
"A Course in Game Theory,"
814577000000000225, UCLA Department of Economics.
- Eichberger, Jurgen & Kelsey, David, 1996.
"Uncertainty Aversion and Preference for Randomisation,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 31-43, October.
- Eichberger, J. & Kelsey, D., 1995. "Uncertainty Aversion and Preferences for Randomisation," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 476, The University of Melbourne.
- Epstein, Larry G., 1997. "Preference, Rationalizability and Equilibrium," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 1-29, March.
- Itzhak Gilboa & David Schmeidler, 1992.
"Canonical Representation of Set Functions,"
986, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Alain Chateauneuf & Jean-Yves Jaffray, 2008.
"Some Characterizations of Lower Probabilities and Other Monotone Capacities through the Use of Mobius Inversion,"
Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers)
- Chateauneuf, Alain & Jaffray, Jean-Yves, 1989. "Some characterizations of lower probabilities and other monotone capacities through the use of Mobius inversion," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 263-283, June.
- Border, Kim C., 1992. "Revealed preference, stochastic dominance, and the expected utility hypothesis," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 20-42, February.
- Pearce, David G, 1984. "Rationalizable Strategic Behavior and the Problem of Perfection," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 1029-50, July.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cor:louvco:1999012. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Alain GILLIS)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.