IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joecth/v9y1996i1p23-46.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding the nonadditive probability decision model (*)

Author

Listed:
  • Sujoy Mukerji

    (Department of Economics, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton S017 1BJ, UK e-mail:sm5Gsoton.ac.uk)

Abstract

The pioneering research of Schmeidler [19] [20] and others identified behavioral axioms that underlie preferences consistent with the maximization of Choquet expected utility. However, these theories do not clarify the link between the epistemics of the decision maker's (DM) problem and his choice. This paper shows that if the DM is aware that his anticipation and perception of future contingencies is incomplete, then his subjective beliefs will be described by a nonadditive probability specification. Further, if the DM acts with a certain notion of caution given the incompleteness in his understanding of the environment, his preferences over acts may have a Choquet expected utility representation. The model developed here thus provides a justification of such beliefs and preferences based on "procedural rationality". The formalism also allows a simple characterization of how belief representation may change as the DM acquires a clearer picture of the contingency space underlying the uncertain environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Sujoy Mukerji, 1996. "Understanding the nonadditive probability decision model (*)," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 9(1), pages 23-46.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:joecth:v:9:y:1996:i:1:p:23-46
    Note: Received: April 6, 1995; revised version November 27, 1995
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Marie-Louise Vierø, 2009. "Exactly what happens after the Anscombe–Aumann race?," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 41(2), pages 175-212, November.
    2. Chateauneuf, Alain & Dana, Rose-Anne & Tallon, Jean-Marc, 2000. "Optimal risk-sharing rules and equilibria with Choquet-expected-utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 191-214, October.
    3. Larry Epstein & Massimo Marinacci, 2005. "Coarse Contingencies," RCER Working Papers 515, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    4. Ayala Arad & Gabrielle Gayer, 2012. "Imprecise Data Sets as a Source of Ambiguity: A Model and Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 188-202, January.
    5. Galanis, Spyros, 2007. "Unawareness of theorems," Discussion Paper Series In Economics And Econometrics 51816, Economics Division, School of Social Sciences, University of Southampton.
    6. Luca Rigotti & Matthew Ryan & Rhema Vaithianathan, 2011. "Optimism and firm formation," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 46(1), pages 1-38, January.
    7. Vassili Vergopoulos, 2011. "Dynamic consistency for non-expected utility preferences," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 48(2), pages 493-518, October.
    8. Mukerji, Sujoy & Tallon, Jean-Marc, 2004. "Ambiguity aversion and the absence of wage indexation," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 653-670, April.
    9. Nabil I. Al-Najjar & Luciano De Castro, 2010. "Uncertainty, Efficiency and Incentive Compatibility," Discussion Papers 1532, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    10. Jürgen Eichberger & David Kelsey, 1999. "E-Capacities and the Ellsberg Paradox," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 107-138, April.
    11. Marcello Basili & Carlo Zappia, 2010. "Ambiguity and uncertainty in Ellsberg and Shackle," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 34(3), pages 449-474.
    12. Chateauneuf, Alain & Dana, Rose-Anne & Tallon, Jean-Marc, 2000. "Optimal risk-sharing rules and equilibria with Choquet-expected-utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 191-214, October.
    13. Roman Kozhan, 2011. "Non-additive anonymous games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 40(2), pages 215-230, May.
    14. Adriana Castaldo & Massimo Marinacci, 2001. "Random correspndences as bundles of random variables," ICER Working Papers - Applied Mathematics Series 12-2001, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.

    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:spr:joecth:v:9:y:1996:i:1:p:23-46. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.