IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ulb/ulbeco/2013-390822.html

A Revealed Preference Test for Choquet and Max-Min Expected Utility with Ambiguity Aversion†

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Demuynck
  • Clément Staner

Abstract

We develop a revealed preference test for the Choquet expected utility model with ambiguity aversion, which does not rely on specific functional form assumptions on the utility index. It is computationally efficient if the number of states is not too large, even for a large number of observations. This is a nice feature compared to other existing revealed preference tests for decision models with ambiguity. We illustrate the usefulness of our results by implementing our test on two experimental datasets from the literature, and we compare the empirical fit of this model to the subjective expected utility model. (JEL C91, D81, D91, G41)

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Demuynck & Clément Staner, 2024. "A Revealed Preference Test for Choquet and Max-Min Expected Utility with Ambiguity Aversion†," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/390822, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    • Handle: RePEc:ulb:ulbeco:2013/390822
    Note: SCOPUS: ar.j
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://dipot.ulb.ac.be/dspace/bitstream/2013/390822/3/draft_37.pdf
    File Function: Full text for the whole work, or for a work part
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Varian, Hal R, 1982. "The Nonparametric Approach to Demand Analysis," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(4), pages 945-973, July.
    2. Edward J. Green & Kent Osband, 1991. "A Revealed Preference Theory for Expected Utility," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 58(4), pages 677-695.
    3. Matthew Polisson & John K.-H. Quah & Ludovic Renou, 2020. "Revealed Preferences over Risk and Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(6), pages 1782-1820, June.
    4. Varian, Hal R., 1990. "Goodness-of-fit in optimizing models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1-2), pages 125-140.
    5. Federico Echenique & Kota Saito, 2015. "Savage in the Market," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83(4), pages 1467-1495, July.
    6. Varian, Hal R., 1983. "Nonparametric Tests of Models of Investor Behavior," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(3), pages 269-278, September.
    7. John D. Hey & Noemi Pace, 2018. "The explanatory and predictive power of non two-stage-probability theories of decision making under ambiguity," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 6, pages 139-167, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Varian, Hal R, 1988. "Estimating Risk Aversion from Arrow-Debreu Portfolio Choice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(4), pages 973-979, July.
    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. Syngjoo Choi & Raymond Fisman & Douglas Gale & Shachar Kariv, 2007. "Consistency, Heterogeneity, and Granularity of Individual Behavior under Uncertainty," Economics Working Papers 0076, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
    11. 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.
    12. Chambers, Christopher P. & Liu, Ce & Martinez, Seung-Keun, 2016. "A test for risk-averse expected utility," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 775-785.
    13. Green, Richard C. & Srivastava, Sanjay, 1986. "Expected utility maximization and demand behavior," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 313-323, April.
    14. 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.
    15. Syngjoo Choi & Raymond Fisman & Douglas Gale & Shachar Kariv, 2007. "Consistency and Heterogeneity of Individual Behavior under Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1921-1938, December.
    16. W. Erwin Diewert, 2012. "Afriat's Theorem and some Extensions to Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 122(560), pages 305-331, May.
    17. repec:ecj:econjl:v:122:y:2012:i::p:305-331 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. W. E. Diewert, 1973. "Afriat and Revealed Preference Theory," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 40(3), pages 419-425.
    19. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    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. Thomas Demuynck & Clément Staner, 2020. "An Efficient Revealed Preference Test for the Maxmin Expected Utility Model," Working Papers ECARES 2020-31, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    2. Federico Echenique, 2020. "New Developments in Revealed Preference Theory: Decisions Under Risk, Uncertainty, and Intertemporal Choice," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 299-316, August.
    3. Dziewulski, Paweł & Lanier, Joshua & Quah, John K.-H., 2024. "Revealed preference and revealed preference cycles: A survey," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    4. Aluma Dembo & Shachar Kariv & Matthew Polisson & John Quah, 2021. "Ever since Allais," IFS Working Papers W21/15, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    5. Cappelen, Alexander W. & Kariv, Shachar & Sørensen, Erik Ø. & Tungodden, Bertil, 2023. "The development gap in economic rationality of future elites," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 866-878.
    6. Demuynck, Thomas & Hjertstrand, Per, 2019. "Samuelson's Approach to Revealed Preference Theory: Some Recent Advances," Working Paper Series 1274, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    7. Pawe{l} Dziewulski & Joshua Lanier & John K. -H. Quah, 2024. "Revealed preference and revealed preference cycles: a survey," Papers 2405.08459, arXiv.org.
    8. Georgalos, Konstantinos, 2021. "Dynamic decision making under ambiguity: An experimental investigation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 28-46.
    9. Konstantinos Georgalos, 2016. "Dynamic decision making under ambiguity," Working Papers 112111041, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    10. 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.
    11. Dziewulski, Paweł, 2025. "A revealed preference approach to approximate utility maximisation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    12. Pawel Dziewulski, 2021. "A comprehensive revealed preference approach to approximate utility maximisation," Working Paper Series 0621, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    13. Thomas Demuynck & John Rehbeck, 2023. "Computing revealed preference goodness-of-fit measures with integer programming," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 76(4), pages 1175-1195, November.
    14. Daniel R. Burghart & Thomas Epper & Ernst Fehr, 2020. "The uncertainty triangle – Uncovering heterogeneity in attitudes towards uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 125-156, April.
    15. 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.
    16. Heufer, Jan, 2014. "Nonparametric comparative revealed risk aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 569-616.
    17. Burghart, Daniel R. & Epper, Thomas & Fehr, Ernst, 2015. "The Ambiguity Triangle: Uncovering Fundamental Patterns of Behavior Under Uncertainty," IZA Discussion Papers 9150, IZA Network @ LISER.
    18. Stefan Trautmann & Peter P. Wakker, 2018. "Making the Anscombe-Aumann approach to ambiguity suitable for descriptive applications," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 83-116, February.
    19. Enrica Carbone & Xueqi Dong & John Hey, 2017. "Elicitation of preferences under ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 87-102, April.
    20. Laurens Cherchye & Thomas Demuynck & Bram De Rock & Joshua Lanier, 2020. "Are Consumers Rational ?Shifting the Burden of Proof," Working Papers ECARES 2020-19, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • G41 - Financial Economics - - Behavioral Finance - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making in Financial Markets

    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:ulb:ulbeco:2013/390822. 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: Benoit Pauwels (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecsulbe.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.