IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-00840001.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Preference for safety under the Choquet model: in search of a characterization

Author

Listed:
  • Michèle Cohen

    (PSE - Paris School of Economics - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement, CES - Centre d'économie de la Sorbonne - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Isaac Meilijson

    (TAU - School of Mathematical Sciences [Tel Aviv] - TAU - Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences [Tel Aviv] - TAU - Tel Aviv University)

Abstract

Victor prefers safety more than Ursula if whenever Ursula prefers a constant to an uncertain act, so does Victor. This paradigm, whose expected utility (EU) version is Arrow and Pratt's more risk aversion concept, will be studied in the Choquet expected utility (CEU) model. Necessary condition Pointwise inequality between a function of the utility functions and another of the capacities is necessary and sufficient for the preference by Victor of safety over a dichotomous act whenever such is the preference of Ursula. However, increased preference for safety versus dichotomous acts does not imply preference by Victor of safety over a general act whenever such is the preference of Ursula. A counterexample will be provided, via the casino theory of Dubins and Savage. Sufficient condition Separation of the two functions by some convex function is sufficient for Victor to prefer safety more than Ursula, over general acts. Furthermore, a condition on the capacities will be presented for simplicity seeking, the preference by Victor over any act for some dichotomous act that leaves Ursula indifferent. This condition is met in particular if Victor's capacity is a convex function of Ursula's capacity. For these cases, the pointwise inequality (necessary) condition is a characterization of greater preference for safety, extending the Arrow-Pratt notion from EU to CEU and rank-dependent utility (RDU). These inequalities preserve the flavor of the "more pessimism than greediness" characterization of monotone risk aversion by Chateauneuf, Cohen and Meilijson in the RDU model and its extension by Grant and Quiggin to CEU. Preferences between safety and dichotomous acts are at the core of the biseparable preferences model of Ghirardato and Marinacci.

Suggested Citation

  • Michèle Cohen & Isaac Meilijson, 2014. "Preference for safety under the Choquet model: in search of a characterization," Post-Print hal-00840001, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00840001
    DOI: 10.1007/s00199-013-0762-2
    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.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chateauneuf, Alain & Cohen, Michele & Meilijson, Isaac, 2004. "Four notions of mean-preserving increase in risk, risk attitudes and applications to the rank-dependent expected utility model," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 547-571, August.
    2. Ian Jewitt, 1989. "Choosing Between Risky Prospects: The Characterization of Comparative Statics Results, and Location Independent Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(1), pages 60-70, January.
    3. Ghirardato, Paolo & Marinacci, Massimo, 2002. "Ambiguity Made Precise: A Comparative Foundation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 251-289, February.
    4. Michael Landsberger & Isaac Meilijson, 1994. "The Generating Process and an Extension of Jewitt's Location Independent Risk Concept," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(5), pages 662-669, May.
    5. Yaari, Menahem E, 1987. "The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 95-115, January.
    6. Alain Chateauneuf & Michéle Cohen & Isaac Meilijson, 2005. "More pessimism than greediness: a characterization of monotone risk aversion in the rank-dependent expected utility model," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 25(3), pages 649-667, April.
    7. Horst Zank, 2010. "Consistent probability attitudes," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 44(2), pages 167-185, August.
    8. Chateauneuf, Alain & Cohen, Michele, 1994. "Risk Seeking with Diminishing Marginal Utility in a Non-expected Utility Model," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 77-91, July.
    9. Landsberger, Michael & Meilijson, Isaac, 1990. "Lotteries, insurance, and star-shaped utility functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 1-17, October.
    10. Hong, Chew Soo & Karni, Edi & Safra, Zvi, 1987. "Risk aversion in the theory of expected utility with rank dependent probabilities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 370-381, August.
    11. Grant, Simon & Quiggin, John, 2005. "Increasing uncertainty: a definition," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 117-141, March.
    12. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    13. Gilboa, Itzhak, 1987. "Expected utility with purely subjective non-additive probabilities," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 65-88, February.
    14. 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.
    15. Ross, Stephen A, 1981. "Some Stronger Measures of Risk Aversion in the Small and the Large with Applications," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(3), pages 621-638, May.
    16. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    17. Rothschild, Michael & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1970. "Increasing risk: I. A definition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 225-243, September.
    18. Rothschild, Michael & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1971. "Increasing risk II: Its economic consequences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 66-84, March.
    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. Jean Baccelli, 2018. "Risk attitudes in axiomatic decision theory: a conceptual perspective," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 61-82, January.
    2. Dennis W. Jansen & Liqun Liu, 2022. "Portfolio choice in the model of expected utility with a safety-first component," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 45(1), pages 187-207, June.
    3. de Castro, Luciano I. & Liu, Zhiwei & Yannelis, Nicholas C., 2017. "Implementation under ambiguity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 20-33.

    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. Michèle Cohen & Isaac Meilijson, 2011. "In search of a characterization of the preference for safety under the Choquet model," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 11031, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    2. Alain Chateauneuf & Michéle Cohen & Isaac Meilijson, 2005. "More pessimism than greediness: a characterization of monotone risk aversion in the rank-dependent expected utility model," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 25(3), pages 649-667, April.
    3. Enrico G. De Giorgi & Ola Mahmoud, 2016. "Diversification preferences in the theory of choice," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 39(2), pages 143-174, November.
    4. Mich�le Cohen, 2015. "Risk Perception, Risk Attitude, and Decision: A Rank-Dependent Analysis," Mathematical Population Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 53-70, March.
    5. Michèle Cohen, 2008. "Risk Perception, Risk Attitude and Decision : a Rank-Dependent Approach," Post-Print halshs-00348810, HAL.
    6. Ghossoub, Mario & He, Xue Dong, 2021. "Comparative risk aversion in RDEU with applications to optimal underwriting of securities issuance," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(PA), pages 6-22.
    7. Jean Baccelli & Georg Schollmeyer & Christoph Jansen, 2022. "Risk aversion over finite domains," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(2), pages 371-397, September.
    8. Chateauneuf, Alain & Cohen, Michele & Meilijson, Isaac, 2004. "Four notions of mean-preserving increase in risk, risk attitudes and applications to the rank-dependent expected utility model," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 547-571, August.
    9. Mao, Tiantian & Hu, Taizhong, 2012. "Characterization of left-monotone risk aversion in the RDEU model," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 413-422.
    10. Grant, Simon & Quiggin, John, 2005. "Increasing uncertainty: a definition," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 117-141, March.
    11. Ryan, Matthew J., 2006. "Risk aversion in RDEU," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 675-697, September.
    12. Alain Chateauneuf & Michèle Cohen, 2008. "Cardinal extensions of EU model based on the Choquet integral," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00348822, HAL.
    13. Grant, S. & Quiggin, J., 2001. "A Model-Free Definition of Increasing Uncertainty," Discussion Paper 2001-84, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    14. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2005. "Are Universal Preferences Possible? Calibration Results for Non-Expected Utility Theories," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 633, Boston College Department of Economics.
    15. 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.
    16. Izhakian, Yehuda, 2017. "Expected utility with uncertain probabilities theory," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 91-103.
    17. Eichberger, Jürgen & Kelsey, David, 2007. "Ambiguity," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 07-50, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
      • Eichberger, Jürgen & Kelsey, David, 2007. "Ambiguity," Papers 07-50, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    18. 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.
    19. Jean Baccelli, 2018. "Risk attitudes in axiomatic decision theory: a conceptual perspective," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 61-82, January.
    20. Johannes G. Jaspersen & Richard Peter & Marc A. Ragin, 2023. "Probability weighting and insurance demand in a unified framework," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 48(1), pages 63-109, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Choquet utility; Casino; Greediness; Pessimism; Rank-dependent utility; Risk aversion; Uncertainty;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • 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:hal:journl:hal-00840001. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.