IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01753323.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Stochastic Independence under Knightian Uncertainty

Author

Listed:
  • Leonardo Pejsachowicz

    (X-DEP-ECO - Département d'Économie de l'École Polytechnique - X - École polytechnique - IP Paris - Institut Polytechnique de Paris)

Abstract

We show that under Bewley preferences, the axiom that usually characterizes stochastic independence is not sufficient to uniquely identify a model of independent beliefs. We thus introduce the concept of product equivalent of an act and show that it allows us to obtain a unique characterization of stochastic independence for the Bewley and multiple-priors expected utility models.

Suggested Citation

  • Leonardo Pejsachowicz, 2016. "Stochastic Independence under Knightian Uncertainty," Post-Print hal-01753323, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01753323
    DOI: 10.3917/redp.263.0379
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-01753323
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-01753323/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3917/redp.263.0379?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Klibanoff, 2001. "Stochastically independent randomization and uncertainty aversion," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 18(3), pages 605-620.
    2. Lo, Kin Chung, 1996. "Equilibrium in Beliefs under Uncertainty," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 443-484, November.
    3. Bade, Sophie, 2011. "Ambiguous act equilibria," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 246-260, March.
    4. Lo, Kin Chung, 2009. "Correlated Nash equilibrium," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(2), pages 722-743, March.
    5. Luca Rigotti & Chris Shannon, 2005. "Uncertainty and Risk in Financial Markets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(1), pages 203-243, January.
    6. , G. & ,, 2010. "Symmetry of evidence without evidence of symmetry," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 5(3), September.
    7. Efe A. Ok & Pietro Ortoleva & Gil Riella, 2012. "Incomplete Preferences Under Uncertainty: Indecisiveness in Beliefs versus Tastes," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(4), pages 1791-1808, July.
    8. Lopomo, Giuseppe & Rigotti, Luca & Shannon, Chris, 2011. "Knightian uncertainty and moral hazard," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(3), pages 1148-1172, 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. Federica Ceron & Vassili Vergopoulos, 2021. "On stochastic independence under ambiguity," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 71(3), pages 925-960, April.

    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. Leonardo Pejsachowicz, 2016. "Stochastic Independence under Knightian Uncertainty," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-01753323, HAL.
    2. Frank Riedel & Linda Sass, 2014. "Ellsberg games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(4), pages 469-509, April.
    3. Bade, Sophie, 2022. "Dynamic semi-consistency," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 117-126.
    4. Karni, Edi & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2015. "Ambiguity and Nonexpected Utility," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    5. 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.
    6. Calford, Evan M., 2020. "Uncertainty aversion in game theory: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 720-734.
    7. 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.
    8. Lang, Matthias & Wambach, Achim, 2013. "The fog of fraud – Mitigating fraud by strategic ambiguity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 255-275.
    9. Stauber, Ronald, 2017. "Irrationality and ambiguity in extensive games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 409-432.
    10. Gerasimou, Georgios, 2018. "On the indifference relation in Bewley preferences," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 24-26.
    11. Azrieli, Yaron & Teper, Roee, 2011. "Uncertainty aversion and equilibrium existence in games with incomplete information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 310-317.
    12. Stauber, Ronald, 2019. "A strategic product for belief functions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 38-64.
    13. Dominiak, Adam & Eichberger, Jürgen, 2021. "Games in context: Equilibrium under ambiguity for belief functions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 125-159.
    14. Evan M. Calford & Gregory DeAngelo, 2023. "Ambiguity and enforcement," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(2), pages 304-338, April.
    15. Dana, Rose-Anne & Riedel, Frank, 2013. "Intertemporal equilibria with Knightian uncertainty," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(4), pages 1582-1605.
    16. Jian Yang, 2015. "Game-theoretic Modeling of Players' Ambiguities on External Factors," Papers 1510.06812, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2017.
    17. repec:ipg:wpaper:16 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Eric Danan & Thibault Gajdos & Brian Hill & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2016. "Robust Social Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(9), pages 2407-2425, September.
    19. Luciano Castro & Alain Chateauneuf, 2011. "Ambiguity aversion and trade," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 48(2), pages 243-273, October.
    20. Frank Riedel, 2017. "Uncertain Acts in Games," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 275-292, December.
    21. Burkhard C. Schipper, 2021. "The evolutionary stability of optimism, pessimism, and complete ignorance," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(3), pages 417-454, May.

    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-01753323. 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.