IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/matsoc/v63y2012i3p252-256.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dynamically consistent CEU preferences on f-convex events

Author

Listed:
  • Lapied, André
  • Toquebeuf, Pascal

Abstract

We give an axiomatic foundation to the updating rule proposed by Sarin and Wakker [Sarin, R., Wakker, P.P., 1998a. Revealed likelihood and knightian uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 16, 223–250] for CEU preferences. This rule is dynamically consistent but non-consequentialist, since forgone consequences are relevant for conditioning. Whereas it does not work universally, but only when counterfactuals outcomes are better and/or worse than the ones resulting on the conditioning event, the rule has many interesting features, since it is able to describe Ellsberg-type preferences together with a recursive structure of the criterion.

Suggested Citation

  • Lapied, André & Toquebeuf, Pascal, 2012. "Dynamically consistent CEU preferences on f-convex events," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 252-256.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:matsoc:v:63:y:2012:i:3:p:252-256
    DOI: 10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2012.03.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165489612000224
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2012.03.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. André Lapied & Pascal Toquebeuf, 2010. "Atemporal non-expected utility preferences, dynamic consistency and consequentialism," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 30(2), pages 1661-1669.
    2. Gilboa Itzhak & Schmeidler David, 1993. "Updating Ambiguous Beliefs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 33-49, February.
    3. Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon & Kelsey, David, 2005. "CEU preferences and dynamic consistency," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 143-151, March.
    4. Paolo Ghirardato, 2002. "Revisiting Savage in a conditional world," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 20(1), pages 83-92.
    5. Wakker, Peter, 1989. "Continuous subjective expected utility with non-additive probabilities," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 1-27, February.
    6. 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.
    7. Gilboa, Itzhak, 1987. "Expected utility with purely subjective non-additive probabilities," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 65-88, February.
    8. Alain Chateauneuf & Robert Kast & André Lapied, 2001. "Conditioning Capacities and Choquet Integrals: The Role of Comonotony," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 367-386, December.
    9. Young, Virginia R., 1998. "Families of update rules for non-additive measures: Applications in pricing risks," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 1-14, October.
    10. Mark J. Machina, 2009. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Rank-Dependence Axioms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(1), pages 385-392, March.
    11. 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.
    12. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    13. André Lapied & Pascal Toquebeuf, 2013. "A note on “Re-examining the law of iterated expectations for Choquet decision makers”," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(3), pages 439-445, March.
    14. André Lapied & Pascal Toquebeuf, 2010. "Atemporal non-expected utility preferences, dynamic consistency and consequentialism," Post-Print hal-03217049, HAL.
    15. , & ,, 2007. "Updating preferences with multiple priors," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 2(3), September.
    16. Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon & Kelsey, David, 2007. "Updating Choquet beliefs," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(7-8), pages 888-899, September.
    17. Sarin, Rakesh & Wakker, Peter P, 1998. "Revealed Likelihood and Knightian Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 223-250, July-Aug..
    18. 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.
    19. Epstein, Larry G. & Schneider, Martin, 2003. "Recursive multiple-priors," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 1-31, November.
    20. repec:dau:papers:123456789/7323 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Alexander Zimper, 2011. "Re-examining the law of iterated expectations for Choquet decision makers," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 669-677, October.
    22. Nobuo Koida, 2012. "Nest-monotonic two-stage acts and exponential probability capacities," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 50(1), pages 99-124, May.
    23. Sarin, Rakesh & Wakker, Peter P, 1998. "Dynamic Choice and NonExpected Utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 87-119, November.
    24. Eichberger, Jurgen & Kelsey, David, 1996. "Uncertainty Aversion and Dynamic Consistency," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 37(3), pages 625-640, August.
    25. 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)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Dominiak, Adam, 2013. "Iterated Choquet expectations: A possibility result," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 120(2), pages 155-159.

    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. André Lapied & Pascal Toquebeuf, 2011. "Dynamically consistent CEU preferences," Working Papers halshs-00856193, HAL.
    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. André Lapied & Pascal Tocquebeuf, 2007. "Consistent Dynamice Choice And Non-Expected Utility Preferences," Working Papers halshs-00353880, HAL.
    4. 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.
    5. Alexander Zimper, 2011. "Do Bayesians Learn Their Way Out of Ambiguity?," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 269-285, December.
    6. Dominiak, Adam, 2013. "Iterated Choquet expectations: A possibility result," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 120(2), pages 155-159.
    7. Gumen, Anna & Savochkin, Andrei, 2013. "Dynamically stable preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(4), pages 1487-1508.
    8. Dominiak, Adam & Duersch, Peter & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2012. "A dynamic Ellsberg urn experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 625-638.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Eichberger, Jürgen & Grant, Simon & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2008. "Neo-additive capacities and updating," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 08-31, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    12. Nobuo Koida, 2012. "Nest-monotonic two-stage acts and exponential probability capacities," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 50(1), pages 99-124, May.
    13. 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.
    14. Daniel Heyen, 2018. "Ambiguity aversion under maximum-likelihood updating," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(3), pages 373-386, May.
    15. Dominiak, Adam & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2015. "“Agreeing to disagree” type results under ambiguity," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 119-129.
    16. Faro, José Heleno & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2019. "Dynamic objective and subjective rationality," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(1), January.
    17. 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.
    18. Giulianella Coletti & Davide Petturiti & Barbara Vantaggi, 2019. "Dutch book rationality conditions for conditional preferences under ambiguity," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 279(1), pages 115-150, August.
    19. Jürgen Eichberger & Simon Grant & David Kelsey, 2012. "When is ambiguity–attitude constant?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 239-263, December.
    20. Alexander Ludwig & Alexander Zimper, 2013. "A decision-theoretic model of asset-price underreaction and overreaction to dividend news," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 625-665, November.

    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:eee:matsoc:v:63:y:2012:i:3:p:252-256. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505565 .

    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.