IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/etbull/v1y2013i2d10.1007_s40505-013-0015-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An interpretation of Ellsberg’s Paradox based on information and incompleteness

Author

Listed:
  • Luciano I. Castro

    (Northwestern University)

  • Nicholas C. Yannelis

    (Henry B. Tippie College of Business, The University of Iowa
    The University of Manchester)

Abstract

This note relates ambiguity aversion and private information, by offering an interpretation of the Ellsberg’s paradox in terms of incompleteness of preferences. We adopt the standard model of information in terms of a $$\sigma $$ σ -algebra $$\Sigma $$ Σ of events. These events are the events that the decision maker is informed about and therefore able to judge its likelihood by attaching a probability value to them. Note that the decision maker is unable to compare acts that are not measurable with respect to $$\Sigma $$ Σ , because those cannot be integrated using the standard expected utility framework. Her preferences are, therefore, incomplete. Facing a decision problem that requires comparing non-measurable acts, the decision maker is confronted with the problem of completing her preferences. Some natural ways of completing the preferences lead to the behavior described by the Ellsberg’s thought experiment.

Suggested Citation

  • Luciano I. Castro & Nicholas C. Yannelis, 2013. "An interpretation of Ellsberg’s Paradox based on information and incompleteness," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 1(2), pages 139-144, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:etbull:v:1:y:2013:i:2:d:10.1007_s40505-013-0015-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s40505-013-0015-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40505-013-0015-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40505-013-0015-3?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. Kopylov, Igor, 2007. "Subjective probabilities on "small" domains," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 133(1), pages 236-265, March.
    2. Cerreia-Vioglio, S. & Maccheroni, F. & Marinacci, M. & Montrucchio, L., 2011. "Uncertainty averse preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(4), pages 1275-1330, July.
    3. ,, 2016. "Objective rationality and uncertainty averse preferences," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 11(2), May.
    4. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    5. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    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. William A. Barnett & Kangzheng Ding, 2024. "Expected Utility Maximization Under Weakened Assumptions Consistent With Behavioral Economics," WORKING PAPERS SERIES IN THEORETICAL AND APPLIED ECONOMICS 202418, University of Kansas, Department of Economics.
    2. De Castro, Luciano & Yannelis, Nicholas C., 2018. "Uncertainty, efficiency and incentive compatibility: Ambiguity solves the conflict between efficiency and incentive compatibility," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 678-707.

    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. Cerreia-Vioglio, Simone & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo & Montrucchio, Luigi, 2012. "Probabilistic sophistication, second order stochastic dominance and uncertainty aversion," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 271-283.
    2. Frick, Mira & Iijima, Ryota & Le Yaouanq, Yves, 2022. "Objective rationality foundations for (dynamic) α-MEU," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    3. Casaca, Paulo & Chateauneuf, Alain & Faro, José Heleno, 2014. "Ignorance and competence in choices under uncertainty," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 143-150.
    4. Dong, Xueqi & Liu, Shuo Li, 2021. "Proportional Tax under Ambiguity," MPRA Paper 107668, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Loïc Berger & Massimo Marinacci, 2020. "Model Uncertainty in Climate Change Economics: A Review and Proposed Framework for Future Research," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(3), pages 475-501, November.
    6. Cerreia-Vioglio, Simone & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2022. "Ambiguity aversion and wealth effects," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    7. Cerreia-Vioglio, Simone & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo & Montrucchio, Luigi, 2013. "Ambiguity and robust statistics," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(3), pages 974-1049.
      • Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & Luigi Montrucchio, 2011. "Ambiguity and Robust Statistics," Working Papers 382, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    8. André, Eric, 2016. "Crisp monetary acts in multiple-priors models of decision under ambiguity," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 153-161.
    9. Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & Paolo Ghirardato & Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & Marciano Siniscalchi, 2011. "Rational preferences under ambiguity," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 48(2), pages 341-375, October.
    10. Bommier, Antoine & Kochov, Asen & Le Grand, François, 2019. "Ambiguity and endogenous discounting," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 48-62.
    11. Berger, Loic & Bosetti, Valentina, 2016. "Ellsberg Re-revisited: An Experiment Disentangling Model Uncertainty and Risk Aversion," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 236239, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    12. ,, 2016. "Objective rationality and uncertainty averse preferences," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 11(2), May.
    13. Ilke Aydogan & Loïc Berger & Valentina Bosetti & Ning Liu, 2023. "Three Layers of Uncertainty," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 21(5), pages 2209-2236.
    14. repec:hal:journl:hal-03031751 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Bade, Sophie, 2015. "Randomization devices and the elicitation of ambiguity-averse preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PA), pages 221-235.
    16. Christoph Kuzmics & Brian W. Rogers & Xiannong Zhang, 2024. "Randomization advice and ambiguity aversion," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 69(1), pages 85-104, August.
    17. Loic Berger & Valentina Bosetti, 2016. "Ellsberg Re-revisited: An Experiment Disentangling Model Uncertainty and Risk Aversion," Working Papers 2016.37, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    18. Loic Berger & Massimo Marinacci, 2017. "Model Uncertainty in Climate Change Economics," Working Papers 616, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    19. Gumen, Anna & Savochkin, Andrei, 2013. "Dynamically stable preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(4), pages 1487-1508.
    20. Cettolin, E. & Riedl, A.M., 2015. "Revealed incomplete preferences under uncertainty," Research Memorandum 016, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    21. De Castro, Luciano & Yannelis, Nicholas C., 2018. "Uncertainty, efficiency and incentive compatibility: Ambiguity solves the conflict between efficiency and incentive compatibility," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 678-707.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Asymmetric information; Ambiguity aversion; Ellsberg’s Paradox;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C44 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Operations Research; Statistical Decision Theory
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:spr:etbull:v:1:y:2013:i:2:d:10.1007_s40505-013-0015-3. 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.