IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pit/wpaper/5866.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Subjective Independence and Concave Expected Utility

Author

Listed:
  • Roee Teper

Abstract

When a potential hedge between alternatives does not reduce the exposureto uncertainty, we say that the decision maker considers these alternativesstructurally similar. We o er a novel approach and suggest that structural similarityis subjective and should be diff erent across decision makers. Structural similaritycan be recovered through a property of the individual's preferences referred to assubjective codecomposable independence. This property characterizes a class of event-separablemodels and allows us to diff erentiate between perception of uncertainty andattitude towards it. In addition, our approach provides a behavioral foundation toConcave Expected Utility preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Roee Teper, 2015. "Subjective Independence and Concave Expected Utility," Working Paper 5866, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh.
    • Handle: RePEc:pit:wpaper:5866
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econ.pitt.edu/sites/default/files/working_papers/Working%20Paper%20coverpage.16.12.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. König-Kersting, Christian & Kops, Christopher & Trautmann, Stefan T., 2023. "A test of (weak) certainty independence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    2. Baillon, Aurélien & Bleichrodt, Han & Li, Chen & Wakker, Peter P., 2021. "Belief hedges: Measuring ambiguity for all events and all models," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    3. Ehud Lehrer & Roee Teper, 2020. "Set-valued capacities: multi-agenda decision making," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 69(1), pages 233-248, February.
    4. Juan Sebastián Lleras & Evan Piermont & Richard Svoboda, 2019. "Asymmetric gain–loss reference dependence and attitudes toward uncertainty," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(3), pages 669-699, October.
    5. Aurélien Baillon & Zhenxing Huang & Asli Selim & Peter P. Wakker, 2018. "Measuring Ambiguity Attitudes for All (Natural) Events," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1839-1858, September.
    6. Adam Dominiak & Jean-Philippe Lefort, 2021. "Ambiguity and Probabilistic Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(7), pages 4310-4326, July.
    7. Abhinash Borah & Christopher Kops, 2016. "The Anscombe–Aumann representation and the independence axiom: a reconsideration," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(2), pages 211-226, February.

    More about this item

    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:pit:wpaper:5866. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/depghus.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.