IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/stpapr/v43y2002i1p5-22.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Expected utility within a generalized concept of probability — a comprehensive framework for decision making under ambiguity

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Augustin

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Augustin, 2002. "Expected utility within a generalized concept of probability — a comprehensive framework for decision making under ambiguity," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 5-22, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:stpapr:v:43:y:2002:i:1:p:5-22
    DOI: 10.1007/s00362-001-0083-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s00362-001-0083-6
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00362-001-0083-6?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. Chateauneuf, A. & Cohen, M. & Meilijson, I., 1997. "New Tools to Better Model Behavior Under Risk and UNcertainty: An Oevrview," Papiers d'Economie Mathématique et Applications 97.55, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    2. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    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. Lev V. Utkin & Natalia V. Simanova, 2012. "The Ds/Ahp Method Under Partial Information About Criteria And Alternatives By Several Levels Of Criteria," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 11(02), pages 307-326.
    2. David Bickel, 2015. "Blending Bayesian and frequentist methods according to the precision of prior information with applications to hypothesis testing," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 24(4), pages 523-546, November.
    3. Antonio Calcagnì & Luigi Lombardi & Lorenzo Avanzi & Eduardo Pascali, 2020. "Multiple mediation analysis for interval-valued data," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 61(1), pages 347-369, February.

    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. Abouda, Moez & Chateauneuf, Alain, 2002. "Characterization of symmetrical monotone risk aversion in the RDEU model," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 1-15, September.
    2. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2006. "Les nouveaux modèles de décision dans le risque et l’incertain : quel apport ? [The new models of decision under risk or uncertainty : What approach?]," MPRA Paper 25442, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Grant, Simon & Quiggin, John, 2005. "Increasing uncertainty: a definition," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 117-141, March.
    4. Fabio Maccheroni, 2004. "Yaari's dual theory without the completeness axiom," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 23(3), pages 701-714, March.
    5. Stanislaw Heilpern, 2002. "Using Choquet integral in economics," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 53-73, January.
    6. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2006. "Les nouveaux modèles de décision dans le risque et l’incertain : quel apport ? [The new models of decision under risk or uncertainty : What approach?]," MPRA Paper 25442, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Jean Baccelli, 2018. "Risk attitudes in axiomatic decision theory: a conceptual perspective," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 61-82, January.
    8. Denuit Michel & Dhaene Jan & Goovaerts Marc & Kaas Rob & Laeven Roger, 2006. "Risk measurement with equivalent utility principles," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 24(1), pages 1-25, July.
    9. repec:dau:papers:123456789/6771 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Ralph W. Bailey & Jürgen Eichberger & David Kelsey, 2005. "Ambiguity and Public Good Provision in Large Societies," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 7(5), pages 741-759, December.
    11. 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.
    12. Shi, Yun & Cui, Xiangyu & Zhou, Xunyu, 2020. "Beta and Coskewness Pricing: Perspective from Probability Weighting," SocArXiv 5rqhv, Center for Open Science.
    13. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2019. "What are axiomatizations good for?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 339-359, May.
    14. Giovanni Bonaccolto & Massimiliano Caporin & Sandra Paterlini, 2018. "Asset allocation strategies based on penalized quantile regression," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 1-32, January.
    15. 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.
    16. Evan Piermont, 2021. "Hypothetical Expected Utility," Papers 2106.15979, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2021.
    17. ,, 2014. "Second order beliefs models of choice under imprecise risk: non-additive second order beliefs vs. nonlinear second order utility," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 9(3), September.
    18. Diecidue, Enrico & Wakker, Peter P, 2001. "On the Intuition of Rank-Dependent Utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 281-298, November.
    19. Kiyohiko G. Nishimura & Hiroyuki Ozaki, 2001. "Search under the Knightian Uncertainty," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-112, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    20. H Zank, 2004. "Deriving Rank-Dependent Expected Utility Through Probabilistic Consistency," Economics Discussion Paper Series 0409, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    21. 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.

    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:stpapr:v:43:y:2002:i:1:p:5-22. 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.