IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cda/wpaper/263.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Capacities And Probabilistic Beliefs: A Precarious Coexistence

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Magill
  • Klaus Nehring
  • Julian R. Betts

    (Department of Economics, University of California Davis)

Abstract

This paper raises the problem of how to define revealed probabilistic beliefs in the context of the capacity/Choquet Expected Utility model. At the center of the analysis is a decision-theoretically axiomatized definition of ""revealed unambiguous events."" The definition is shown to impose surprisingly strong restrictions on the underlying capacity and on the set of unambiguous events; in particular, the latter is always an algebra. Alternative weaker definitions violate even minimal criteria of adequacy. Rather than finding fault with the proposed definition, we argue that our results indicate that the CEU model is epistemically restrictive, and point out that analogous problems do not arise within the Maximin Expected Utility model.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Magill & Klaus Nehring & Julian R. Betts, 2003. "Capacities And Probabilistic Beliefs: A Precarious Coexistence," Working Papers 263, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:cda:wpaper:263
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repec.dss.ucdavis.edu/files/CWZwHe7CECk2aX7TvYRkNQJh/97-8.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eichberger, Jurgen & Kelsey, David, 1996. "Uncertainty Aversion and Preference for Randomisation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 31-43, October.
    2. Sarin, Rakesh K & Wakker, Peter, 1992. "A Simple Axiomatization of Nonadditive Expected Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(6), pages 1255-1272, November.
    3. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    4. 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.
    5. Nehring, Klaus, 1994. "On the Interpretation of Sarin and Wakker's "A Simple Axiomatization of Nonadditive Expected Utility."," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(4), pages 935-938, July.
    6. 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)

    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. 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.
    2. Stauber, Ronald, 2019. "A strategic product for belief functions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 38-64.
    3. Nehring, Klaus, 1999. "Capacities and probabilistic beliefs: a precarious coexistence," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 197-213, September.
    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. Larry Epstein, 1997. "Uncertainty Aversion," Working Papers epstein-97-01, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    6. Jürgen Eichberger & David Kelsey, 2004. "Sequential Two-Player Games With Ambiguity," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 45(4), pages 1229-1261, November.
    7. Ghirardato, Paolo & Le Breton, Michel, 2000. "Choquet Rationality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 277-285, February.
    8. Ghirardato, Paolo, 1997. "On Independence for Non-Additive Measures, with a Fubini Theorem," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 261-291, April.
    9. Boff, Hugo Pedro & Werlang, Sergio Ribeiro da Costa, 1998. "Cournot Competition Under Knightian Uncertainty," Brazilian Review of Econometrics, Sociedade Brasileira de Econometria - SBE, vol. 18(2), November.
    10. Ramon Casadesus-Masanell & Peter Klibanoff & Emre Ozdenoren, 1998. "Maximum Expected Utility over Savage Acts with a Set of Priors," Discussion Papers 1218, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    11. Marinacci, Massimo, 2000. "Ambiguous Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 191-219, May.
    12. Casadesus-Masanell, Ramon & Klibanoff, Peter & Ozdenoren, Emre, 2000. "Maxmin Expected Utility over Savage Acts with a Set of Priors," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 92(1), pages 35-65, May.
    13. Klaus Nehring, 2006. "Bernoulli Without Bayes: A Theory of Utility-Sophisticated Preferences under Ambiguity," Economics Working Papers 0072, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
    14. Ehud Lehrer, 2009. "A new integral for capacities," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 39(1), pages 157-176, April.
    15. Yoram Halevy & Vincent Feltkamp, 2005. "A Bayesian Approach to Uncertainty Aversion," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 72(2), pages 449-466.
    16. Jürgen Eichberger & David Kelsey, 2014. "Optimism And Pessimism In Games," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 55(2), pages 483-505, May.
    17. Loïc Berger & Louis Eeckhoudt, 2021. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Value of Diversification," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1639-1647, March.
    18. Adam Dominiak & Wendelin Schnedler, 2011. "Attitudes toward uncertainty and randomization: an experimental study," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 48(2), pages 289-312, October.
    19. Olivier L’Haridon & Lætitia Placido, 2010. "Betting on Machina’s reflection example: an experiment on ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 375-393, September.
    20. David Kelsey & Sara Roux, 2015. "An experimental study on the effect of ambiguity in a coordination game," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 667-688, December.

    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:cda:wpaper:263. 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: Letters and Science IT Services Unit (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/educdus.html .

    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.