IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v10y2022i7p1017-d776740.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rational Degree of Belief Ceases to Be Additive When the Dutch Book Argument Is Transported to a New Environment

Author

Listed:
  • Donald Bamber

    (Department of Cognitive Sciences, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA)

Abstract

The strength of a person’s beliefs can be measured by the buying and selling prices they offer on contingent promissory notes. Consider a promissory note contingent on a proposition; it pays off one unit of money if the proposition is true and nothing otherwise. The more strongly a person believes the proposition, the higher the minimum price would be at which they would sell it. The same would apply to the maximum purchase price. The well-known Dutch Book Argument claims that, if the person’s beliefs are rational, their buying/selling prices should combine additively, meaning that the price of a promissory note contingent on the disjunction of two incompatible propositions should be the sum of the prices of the promissory notes contingent on the individual incompatible propositions. This paper shows that the essence of the Dutch Book Argument is that rational belief is additive because money is additive. It is proved that, if the structure of the Dutch Book Argument is kept, but a nonadditive resource is substituted for money, then rational belief will follow a nonadditive combining rule. It is also shown how rational buying/selling prices behave when the pay-off amount of a contingent note changes.

Suggested Citation

  • Donald Bamber, 2022. "Rational Degree of Belief Ceases to Be Additive When the Dutch Book Argument Is Transported to a New Environment," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-28, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:10:y:2022:i:7:p:1017-:d:776740
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/7/1017/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/7/1017/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ramsey, Frank P., 1926. "Truth and Probability," Histoy of Economic Thought Chapters, in: Braithwaite, R. B. (ed.),The Foundations of Mathematics and other Logical Essays, chapter 7, pages 156-198, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought.
    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. 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.
    2. Marcello Basili, 2006. "A Rational Decision Rule with Extreme Events," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1721-1728, December.
    3. Panagiotidis, Theodore & Printzis, Panagiotis, 2020. "What is the investment loss due to uncertainty?," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    4. Adrian C. Darnell, 1994. "A Dictionary Of Econometrics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 118.
    5. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Rasocha, Vlastimil, 2021. "Experimental methods: Eliciting beliefs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 234-256.
    6. Feduzi, Alberto & Runde, Jochen, 2014. "Uncovering unknown unknowns: Towards a Baconian approach to management decision-making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 268-283.
    7. Jean Baccelli & Philippe Mongin, 2016. "Choice-based cardinal utility: a tribute to Patrick Suppes," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 268-288, July.
    8. Richard Bradley, 2003. "Axiomatic Bayesian Utilitarianism," Working Papers hal-00242956, HAL.
    9. Knowles, Glenn J., 1980. "Estimating Utility Functions," Risk Analysis in Agriculture: Research and Educational Developments, January 16-18, 1980, Tucson, Arizona 271570, Regional Research Projects > W-149: An Economic Evaluation of Managing Market Risks in Agriculture.
    10. Bethany J. Weber & Wah Pheow Tan, 2012. "Ambiguity aversion in a delay analogue of the Ellsberg Paradox," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(4), pages 383-389, July.
    11. John Douard, 1996. "Is Risk Neutrality Rational?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(1), pages 10-11, February.
    12. Shira Elqayam & David Over, 2012. "Probabilities, beliefs, and dual processing: the paradigm shift in the psychology of reasoning," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 11(1), pages 27-40, June.
    13. Bélyácz, Iván, 2010. "Kockázat vagy bizonytalanság?. Elmélettörténeti töredék a régi dilemmáról [Risk or uncertainty?. A fragment of the history of theory on an old dilemma]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(7), pages 652-665.
    14. Eddie Dekel & Barton L. Lipman, 2010. "How (Not) to Do Decision Theory," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 257-282, September.
    15. Robert Kast, 2011. "Managing financial risks due to natural catastrophes," Working Papers hal-00610241, HAL.
    16. Timothy C. Johnson, 2012. "Ethics and Finance: the role of mathematics," Papers 1210.5390, arXiv.org.
    17. Dreze, Jacques H. & Rustichini, Aldo, 1999. "Moral hazard and conditional preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 159-181, March.
    18. Kerstin Gidlöf & Annika Wallin & Kenneth Holmqvist & Peter Møgelvang-Hansen, 2013. "Material Distortion of Economic Behaviour and Everyday Decision Quality," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 389-402, December.
    19. Ola Mahmoud, 2017. "On the consistency of choice," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(4), pages 547-572, December.
    20. Sergio Almeida & Marcos Rangel, 2016. "Probabilistic Sophistication, Sources Of Uncertainty, And Cognitive Ability: Experimental Evidence," Anais do XLII Encontro Nacional de Economia [Proceedings of the 42nd Brazilian Economics Meeting] 131, ANPEC - Associação Nacional dos Centros de Pós-Graduação em Economia [Brazilian Association of Graduate Programs in Economics].

    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:gam:jmathe:v:10:y:2022:i:7:p:1017-:d:776740. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.