IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/xrs/sfbmaa/03-29.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Security And Potential Level Preferences With

Author

Listed:
  • Schmidt, Ulrich

    (Lehrstuhl Finanzmarkttheorie, University of Hannover)

  • Zimper, Alexander

    (Sonderforschungsbereich 504)

Abstract

The security level models of Gilboa (1988) and of Jaffray (1988) as well as the security and potential level model of Cohen (1992) accomodate succesfully classical Allais paradoxa while they offer an interesting explanation for their occurrence. However, experimental data suggest a systematic violation of these models when lotteries with low probabilities of bad or good outcomes are involved. The present paper develops an axiomatic model that allows for thresholds in the perception of security and potential levels. The derived representation of preferences accommodates the observed violations of the original security and potential level models and provides a natural explanation for their occurence. Additionally, a more fundamental problem of the original models is resolved.

Suggested Citation

  • Schmidt, Ulrich & Zimper, Alexander, 2003. "Security And Potential Level Preferences With," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 03-29, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    • Handle: RePEc:xrs:sfbmaa:03-29
    Note: The authors want to thank Martin Hellwig, Peter Wakker, Ithzak Gilboa, Craig Fox, Martin Peterson,
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sfb504.uni-mannheim.de/publications/dp03-29.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Itzhak Gilboa, 1988. "A Combination of Expected Utility and Maxmin Decision Criteria," Post-Print hal-00753244, HAL.
    2. Chateauneuf, Alain & Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon, 2007. "Choice under uncertainty with the best and worst in mind: Neo-additive capacities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 538-567, November.
    3. 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.
    4. Lennart Sjoberg, 1999. "Consequences of perceived risk: Demand for mitigation," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(2), pages 129-149.
    5. Jürgen Eichberger & David Kelsey, 1999. "E-Capacities and the Ellsberg Paradox," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 107-138, April.
    6. Harless, David W & Camerer, Colin F, 1994. "The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1251-1289, November.
    7. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    8. Essid, Samir, 1997. "Choice under risk with certainty and potential effects: A general axiomatic model," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 223-247, October.
    9. Stone, Eric R. & Yates, J. Frank & Parker, Andrew M., 1994. "Risk Communication: Absolute versus Relative Expressions of Low-Probability Risks," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 387-408, December.
    10. Karni, Edi & Schmeidler, David, 1991. "Utility theory with uncertainty," Handbook of Mathematical Economics, in: W. Hildenbrand & H. Sonnenschein (ed.), Handbook of Mathematical Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 33, pages 1763-1831, Elsevier.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Zimper, Alexander, 2004. "On the existence of strategic solutions for games with security- and potential level players," Papers 04-04, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.

    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. Schmidt, Ulrich & Zimper, Alexander, 2003. "Security and potential level preferences with thresholds," Papers 03-29, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    2. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2022. "Chance theory: A separation of riskless and risky utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(1), pages 1-32, August.
    3. Zimper, Alexander, 2004. "On the Existence of Strategic Solutions for Games with Security- and Potential Level Players," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 04-04, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    4. Alexander Zimper, 2007. "Strategic games with security and potential level players," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 63(1), pages 53-78, August.
    5. Ulrich Schmidt, 2001. "Lottery Dependent Utility: a Reexamination," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 35-58, February.
    6. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    7. Schmidt, Ulrich, 2000. "The certainty effect and boundary effects with transformed probabilities," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 29-33, April.
    8. Ludwig, Alexander & Groneck, Max & Zimper, Alexander, 2021. "Who Saves More, the Naive or the Sophisticated Agent?," CEPR Discussion Papers 16412, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Craig Webb, 2015. "Piecewise additivity for non-expected utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 60(2), pages 371-392, October.
    10. Dagsvik, John K., 2008. "Axiomatization of stochastic models for choice under uncertainty," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 341-370, May.
    11. B. Douglas Bernheim & Charles Sprenger, 2020. "On the Empirical Validity of Cumulative Prospect Theory: Experimental Evidence of Rank‐Independent Probability Weighting," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(4), pages 1363-1409, July.
    12. Mark Schneider, 2019. "A Bias Aggregation Theorem," Working Papers 19-03, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    13. John K. Dagsvik, 2005. "Choice under Uncertainty and Bounded Rationality," Discussion Papers 409, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    14. Karni, Edi & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2015. "Ambiguity and Nonexpected Utility," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    15. Chateauneuf, Alain & Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon, 2007. "Choice under uncertainty with the best and worst in mind: Neo-additive capacities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 538-567, November.
    16. Dagsvik, John K., 2015. "Stochastic models for risky choices: A comparison of different axiomatizations," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 81-88.
    17. Bocqueho, Geraldine & Jacquet, Florence & Reynaud, Arnaud, 2011. "Expected Utility or Prospect Theory Maximizers? Results from a Structural Model based on Field-experiment Data," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114257, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Ehud Lehrer, 2009. "A new integral for capacities," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 39(1), pages 157-176, April.
    19. Enrico Diecidue & Peter Wakker & Marcel Zeelenberg, 2007. "Eliciting decision weights by adapting de Finetti’s betting-odds method to prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 179-199, June.
    20. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Horst Zank, 2023. "Source and rank-dependent utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(4), pages 949-981, May.

    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:xrs:sfbmaa:03-29. 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: Carsten Schmidt (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sfmande.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.