IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/kyo/wpaper/987.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Consequentialism and Dynamic Consistency in Updating Ambiguous Beliefs

Author

Listed:
  • Takao Asano

    (Okayama University)

  • Hiroyuki Kojima

    (Teikyo University)

Abstract

By proposing the notions of upper-constrained dynamic consistency and lower-constrained dynamic consistency that are weaker axioms than dynamic consistency, this paper axiomatizes the Dempster-Shafer updating rule and naive Bayes' updating rule within the framework of Choquet expected utility. Based on the notion of conditional comonotonicity, this paper also provides an axiomatization of consequentialism under Choquet expected utility. Fur- thermore, based on the idea of the mean preserving rule, this paper provides a unified approach for distinguishing capacity updating rules (the Dempster- Shafer updating rule, naive Bayes' updating rule, and Fagin-Halpern updating rule) according to the degree of dynamic consistency.

Suggested Citation

  • Takao Asano & Hiroyuki Kojima, 2018. "Consequentialism and Dynamic Consistency in Updating Ambiguous Beliefs," KIER Working Papers 987, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:kyo:wpaper:987
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.kier.kyoto-u.ac.jp/DP/DP987.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wang, Tan, 2003. "Conditional preferences and updating," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 286-321, February.
    2. Gilboa Itzhak & Schmeidler David, 1993. "Updating Ambiguous Beliefs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 33-49, February.
    3. Hammond, Peter J, 1989. "Consistent Plans, Consequentialism, and Expected Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(6), pages 1445-1449, November.
    4. Adam Dominiak & Jean-Philippe Lefort, 2011. "Unambiguous events and dynamic Choquet preferences," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 46(3), pages 401-425, April.
    5. Gilboa,Itzhak, 2009. "Theory of Decision under Uncertainty," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521517324.
    6. Mohammed Abdellaoui & John D. Hey (ed.), 2008. "Advances in Decision Making Under Risk and Uncertainty," Theory and Decision Library C, Springer, number 978-3-540-68437-4, March.
    7. Epstein Larry G. & Le Breton Michel, 1993. "Dynamically Consistent Beliefs Must Be Bayesian," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 1-22, October.
    8. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    9. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    10. , & ,, 2007. "Updating preferences with multiple priors," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 2(3), September.
    11. Machina, Mark J, 1989. "Dynamic Consistency and Non-expected Utility Models of Choice under Uncertainty," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 27(4), pages 1622-1668, December.
    12. repec:dau:papers:123456789/7323 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Cesaltina Pacheco Pires, 2002. "A Rule For Updating Ambiguous Beliefs," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 137-152, September.
    14. Sarin, Rakesh & Wakker, Peter P, 1998. "Dynamic Choice and NonExpected Utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 87-119, November.
    15. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    16. Horie, Mayumi, 2013. "Reexamination on updating Choquet beliefs," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 467-470.
    17. Hanany Eran & Klibanoff Peter, 2009. "Updating Ambiguity Averse Preferences," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-53, November.
    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. Takao Asano & Hiroyuki Kojima, 2019. "Consequentialism and dynamic consistency in updating ambiguous beliefs," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(1), pages 223-250, July.
    2. Spyros Galanis, 2021. "Dynamic consistency, valuable information and subjective beliefs," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 71(4), pages 1467-1497, June.
    3. Faro, José Heleno & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2019. "Dynamic objective and subjective rationality," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(1), January.
    4. Dominiak, Adam & Duersch, Peter & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2012. "A dynamic Ellsberg urn experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 625-638.
    5. Gumen, Anna & Savochkin, Andrei, 2013. "Dynamically stable preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(4), pages 1487-1508.
    6. Bleichrodt, Han & Eichberger, Jürgen & Grant, Simon & Kelsey, David & Li, Chen, 2021. "Testing dynamic consistency and consequentialism under ambiguity," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    7. Alexander Zimper, 2011. "Do Bayesians Learn Their Way Out of Ambiguity?," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 269-285, December.
    8. Han Bleichrodt & Jurgen Eichberger & Simon Grant & David Kelsey & Chen Li, 2018. "A Test of Dynamic Consistency and Consequentialism in the Presence of Ambiguity," Discussion Papers 1803, University of Exeter, Department of Economics.
    9. Georgalos, Konstantinos, 2021. "Dynamic decision making under ambiguity: An experimental investigation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 28-46.
    10. Daniel Heyen, 2018. "Ambiguity aversion under maximum-likelihood updating," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(3), pages 373-386, May.
    11. Dominiak, Adam & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2015. "“Agreeing to disagree” type results under ambiguity," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 119-129.
    12. Heyen, Daniel, 2018. "Ambiguity aversion under maximum-likelihood updating," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 80342, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Lapied, André & Toquebeuf, Pascal, 2012. "Dynamically consistent CEU preferences on f-convex events," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 252-256.
    14. André Lapied & Pascal Tocquebeuf, 2007. "Consistent Dynamice Choice And Non-Expected Utility Preferences," Working Papers halshs-00353880, HAL.
    15. repec:dau:papers:123456789/7333 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Dominiak, Adam, 2013. "Iterated Choquet expectations: A possibility result," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 120(2), pages 155-159.
    17. Azrieli, Yaron & Teper, Roee, 2011. "Uncertainty aversion and equilibrium existence in games with incomplete information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 310-317.
    18. Hill, Brian, 2020. "Dynamic consistency and ambiguity: A reappraisal," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 289-310.
    19. José Heleno Faro & Ana Santos, 2023. "Updating variational (Bewley) preferences," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(1), pages 207-228, January.
    20. Konstantinos Georgalos, 2019. "An experimental test of the predictive power of dynamic ambiguity models," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(1), pages 51-83, August.
    21. repec:dau:papers:123456789/7357 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Zimper, Alexander, 2012. "Asset pricing in a Lucas fruit-tree economy with the best and worst in mind," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 610-628.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Dynamic Consistency; Consequentialism; Choquet Expected Utility; Conditional Comonotonicity; Conditional Preferences; Dempster-Shafer Updating Rule; Naive Bayes' Updating Rule; Fagin-Halpern Updating Rule;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D90 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:kyo:wpaper:987. 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: Makoto Watanabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iekyojp.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.