IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/theord/v78y2015i1p117-139.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An axiomatization of Choquet expected utility with cominimum independence

Author

Listed:
  • Takao Asano
  • Hiroyuki Kojima

Abstract

This paper proposes a class of independence axioms for simple acts. By introducing the $${\mathcal {E}}$$ E -cominimum independence axiom that is stronger than the comonotonic independence axiom but weaker than the independence axiom, we provide a new axiomatization theorem of simple acts within the framework of Choquet expected utility. Furthermore, in order to provide the axiomatization of simple acts, we generalize Kajii et al. (J Math Econ 43:218–230, 2007 ) into an infinite state space. Our axiomatization theorem relates Choquet expected utility to multi-prior expected utility through the core of a capacity that is explicitly derived within our framework. Our result in this paper also derives Gilboa (Econometrica 57:1153–1169, 1989 ), Eichberger and Kelsey (Theory Decis 46:107–140, 1999 ), and Rohde (Soc Choice Welf 34:537–547, 2010 ) as a corollary. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Takao Asano & Hiroyuki Kojima, 2015. "An axiomatization of Choquet expected utility with cominimum independence," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 78(1), pages 117-139, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:78:y:2015:i:1:p:117-139
    DOI: 10.1007/s11238-013-9411-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11238-013-9411-2
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11238-013-9411-2?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. Gilboa, Itzhak, 1989. "Expectation and Variation in Multi-period Decisions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(5), pages 1153-1169, September.
    2. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    3. Kajii, Atsushi & Kojima, Hiroyuki & Ui, Takashi, 2007. "Cominimum additive operators," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 218-230, February.
    4. Asano, Takao, 2006. "Portfolio inertia under ambiguity," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 223-232, December.
    5. Zhang, Jiankang, 1999. "Qualitative probabilities on [lambda]-systems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 11-20, July.
    6. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    7. Kirsten Rohde, 2010. "A preference foundation for Fehr and Schmidt’s model of inequity aversion," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(4), pages 537-547, April.
    8. Chateauneuf, Alain & Jaffray, Jean-Yves, 1989. "Some characterizations of lower probabilities and other monotone capacities through the use of Mobius inversion," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 263-283, June.
    9. Jürgen Eichberger & David Kelsey, 1999. "E-Capacities and the Ellsberg Paradox," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 107-138, April.
    10. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    11. Larry G. Epstein, 1999. "A Definition of Uncertainty Aversion," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 66(3), pages 579-608.
    12. 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.
    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. 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.

    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. Takao Asano & Hiroyuki Kojima, 2013. "An Axiomatization of Choquet Expected Utility with Cominimum Independence," KIER Working Papers 878, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    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. Gajdos, T. & Hayashi, T. & Tallon, J.-M. & Vergnaud, J.-C., 2008. "Attitude toward imprecise information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 140(1), pages 27-65, May.
    4. Klaus Nehring, 2006. "Decision-Making in the Context of Imprecise Probabilistic Beliefs," Economics Working Papers 0034, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
    5. Lo, Kin Chung, 2006. "Agreement and stochastic independence of belief functions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 1-22, January.
    6. Alexander Zimper, 2011. "Do Bayesians Learn Their Way Out of Ambiguity?," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 269-285, December.
    7. Ronald Stauber, 2019. "A strategic product for belief functions," ANU Working Papers in Economics and Econometrics 2019-668, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics.
    8. Zimper, Alexander, 2009. "Half empty, half full and why we can agree to disagree forever," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 283-299, August.
    9. Tapking, Jens, 2004. "Axioms for preferences revealing subjective uncertainty and uncertainty aversion," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(7), pages 771-797, November.
    10. Ludwig, Alexander & Zimper, Alexander, 2006. "Investment behavior under ambiguity: The case of pessimistic decision makers," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 111-130, September.
    11. Takao Asano & Hiroyuki Kojima, 2014. "Modularity and monotonicity of games," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 80(1), pages 29-46, August.
    12. Stauber, Ronald, 2019. "A strategic product for belief functions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 38-64.
    13. Ralf Diedrich, 2024. "Combining Savage and Laplace: a new approach to ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 97(3), pages 423-453, November.
    14. Alexander Ludwig & Alexander Zimper, 2004. "Rational Expectations and Ambiguity: A Comment on Abel," MEA discussion paper series 04066, Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA) at the Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy.
    15. Ghirardato, Paolo & Marinacci, Massimo, 2002. "Ambiguity Made Precise: A Comparative Foundation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 251-289, February.
    16. Jewitt, Ian & Mukerji, Sujoy, 2017. "Ordering ambiguous acts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 213-267.
    17. Junyi Chai & Zhiquan Weng & Wenbin Liu, 2021. "Behavioral Decision Making in Normative and Descriptive Views: A Critical Review of Literature," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-14, October.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Thibault Gajdos & Jean-Marc Tallon & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2002. "Coping with imprecise information: a decision theoretic approach," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques v04056, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), revised May 2004.

    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:kap:theord:v:78:y:2015:i:1:p:117-139. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.