IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cla/levarc/7599.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Two Stage Lotteries Without the Reduction Axiom

Author

Listed:
  • Uzi Segal

Abstract

Preference relations over two-stage lotteries are analyzed. Empirical evidence indicates that decisionmakers do not always behave in accordance with the reduction of compound lotteries axiom, but they seem to satisfy a compound independence axiom. Although the reduction and the compound independence axioms, together with continuity, imply expected utility theory, each of them by itself is compatible with all possible preference relations over simple lotteries. Using these axioms, the author analyzes three different versions of expected utility for two-stage lotteries. The author suggests several different compound dominance axioms as possible replacements of the reduction axiom, which are strictly weaker than the reduction of compound lotteries axiom. Copyright 1990 by The Econometric Society.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Uzi Segal, 2000. "Two Stage Lotteries Without the Reduction Axiom," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7599, David K. Levine.
    • Handle: RePEc:cla:levarc:7599
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.dklevine.com/archive/refs47599.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kreps, David M & Porteus, Evan L, 1978. "Temporal Resolution of Uncertainty and Dynamic Choice Theory," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(1), pages 185-200, January.
    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. René Garcia & Richard Luger & Eric Renault, 2000. "Asymmetric Smiles, Leverage Effects and Structural Parameters," Working Papers 2000-57, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    2. Borovička, Jaroslav & Hansen, Lars Peter, 2014. "Examining macroeconomic models through the lens of asset pricing," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 183(1), pages 67-90.
    3. Matthias Schmidt & Hermann Held & Elmar Kriegler & Alexander Lorenz, 2013. "Climate Policy Under Uncertain and Heterogeneous Climate Damages," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(1), pages 79-99, January.
    4. Stephen Satchell & Susan Thorp, 2007. "Scenario Analysis with Recursive Utility: Dynamic Consumption Plans for Charitable Endowments," Research Paper Series 209, Quantitative Finance Research Centre, University of Technology, Sydney.
    5. Stefania Albanesi & Claudia Olivetti, 2006. "Gender roles and technological progress," 2006 Meeting Papers 411, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    6. van der Ploeg, F., 1989. "Risk aversion, intertemporal substitution and consumption : The CARA-LQ problem," Discussion Paper 1989-53, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    7. Mira Frick & Ryota Iijima & Tomasz Strzalecki, 2019. "Dynamic Random Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(6), pages 1941-2002, November.
    8. Fahrenwaldt, Matthias Albrecht & Jensen, Ninna Reitzel & Steffensen, Mogens, 2020. "Nonrecursive separation of risk and time preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 95-108.
    9. Bommier, Antoine & Lanz, Bruno & Zuber, Stéphane, 2015. "Models-as-usual for unusual risks? On the value of catastrophic climate change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1-22.
    10. Jaroslav Borovička & Lars Peter Hansen & José A. Scheinkman, 2016. "Misspecified Recovery," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 71(6), pages 2493-2544, December.
    11. Koszegi, Botond, 2003. "Health anxiety and patient behavior," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(6), pages 1073-1084, November.
    12. 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.
    13. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/8703 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Isaenko, Sergei, 2008. "The term structure of interest rates in a pure exchange economy where investors have heterogeneous recursive preferences," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 457-481, August.
    15. Hoel, Michael & Iversen, Tor & Nilssen, Tore & Vislie, Jon, 2003. "Genetic testing and repulsion from chance," Memorandum 20/2003, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    16. repec:pri:metric:wp033_2012_hansen_borovicka_hendricks_scheinkman_risk%20price%20dynamics. is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Hansen, Lars Peter & Sargent, Thomas J., 2007. "Recursive robust estimation and control without commitment," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 1-27, September.
    18. Carlson, Kyle, 2015. "Fear itself: The effects of distressing economic news on birth outcomes," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 117-132.
    19. Sumru Altug & Cem Cakmakli & Fabrice Collard & Sujoy Mukerji & Han Ozsoylev, 2020. "Ambiguous Business Cycles: A Quantitative Assessment," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 38, pages 220-237, October.
    20. Abdelhak S. Senhadji, 2000. "How Significant are Departures from Certainty Equivalence? Some Analytical and Empirical Results," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 3(3), pages 597-617, July.
    21. Stuart Hyde & Mohamed Sherif, 2004. "Don't break the habit: structural stability tests of consumption models in the UK," Money Macro and Finance (MMF) Research Group Conference 2003 49, Money Macro and Finance Research Group.
    22. Hanno Lustig & Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh & Adrien Verdelhan, 2013. "The Wealth-Consumption Ratio," The Review of Asset Pricing Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 3(1), pages 38-94.

    More about this item

    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:cla:levarc:7599. 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: David K. Levine (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.dklevine.com/ .

    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.