IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sef/csefwp/425.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ambiguous Games without a State Space and Full Rationality

Author

Listed:

Abstract

Aim of this paper to differentiate and to better understand the assumptions that must be imposed on the structure of ambiguity and on the attitudes towards ambiguity in order to have the existence of equilibria in games under ambiguous belief correspondences. In the present paper, this class of games is studied under weaker restrictions on preferences which are not required to be rational. This paper shows that the assumption of imprecision averse (resp. loving) preferences is key to obtain equilibrium existence whenever it is combined with the property of convexity (resp. concavity) of the ambiguous belief correspondences. The paper also studies the role played by these assumptions in different specific models, so as to illustrate the applicability of the results of equilibrium existence.

Suggested Citation

  • Giuseppe De Marco, 2016. "Ambiguous Games without a State Space and Full Rationality," CSEF Working Papers 425, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy, revised 01 Apr 2017.
    • Handle: RePEc:sef:csefwp:425
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.csef.it/WP/wp425.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bade, Sophie, 2011. "Ambiguous act equilibria," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 246-260, March.
    2. Gajdos, Thibault & Tallon, Jean-Marc & Vergnaud, Jean-Christophe, 2004. "Decision making with imprecise probabilistic information," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 647-681, September.
    3. Gajdos, T. & Hayashi, T. & Tallon, J.-M. & Vergnaud, J.-C., 2008. "Attitude toward imprecise information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 140(1), pages 27-65, May.
    4. Dow James & Werlang Sergio Ribeiro Da Costa, 1994. "Nash Equilibrium under Knightian Uncertainty: Breaking Down Backward Induction," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 305-324, December.
    5. Giuseppe De Marco & Maria Romaniello, 2014. "Variational Preferences and Equilibria in Games under Ambiguous Beliefs Correspondences," CSEF Working Papers 363, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
    6. Ehud Lehrer, 2012. "Partially Specified Probabilities: Decisions and Games," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(1), pages 70-100, February.
    7. 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.
    8. Lo, Kin Chung, 1996. "Equilibrium in Beliefs under Uncertainty," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 443-484, November.
    9. David S. Ahn, 2008. "Ambiguity Without a State Space," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 75(1), pages 3-28.
    10. Giuseppe De Marco & Maria Romaniello, 2015. "On Games and Equilibria with Coherent Lower Expectations," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2015, pages 1-8, June.
    11. Shafer, Wayne & Sonnenschein, Hugo, 1975. "Equilibrium in abstract economies without ordered preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 345-348, December.
    12. Marinacci, Massimo, 2000. "Ambiguous Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 191-219, May.
    13. De Marco, Giuseppe & Romaniello, Maria, 2013. "A limit theorem for equilibria under ambiguous belief correspondences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 431-438.
    14. Eichberger, Jurgen & Kelsey, David, 2000. "Non-Additive Beliefs and Strategic Equilibria," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 183-215, February.
    15. Wojciech Olszewski, 2007. "Preferences Over Sets of Lotteries -super-1," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 74(2), pages 567-595.
    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. Giuseppe De Marco, 2019. "On the convexity of preferences in decisions and games under (quasi-)convex/concave imprecise probability correspondences," CSEF Working Papers 523, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.

    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. Giuseppe De Marco, 2019. "On the convexity of preferences in decisions and games under (quasi-)convex/concave imprecise probability correspondences," CSEF Working Papers 523, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
    2. Giuseppe De Marco & Maria Romaniello, 2014. "Variational Preferences and Equilibria in Games under Ambiguous Beliefs Correspondences," CSEF Working Papers 363, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
    3. Frank Riedel & Linda Sass, 2014. "Ellsberg games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(4), pages 469-509, April.
    4. Karni, Edi & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2015. "Ambiguity and Nonexpected Utility," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    5. Giuseppe De Marco & Maria Romaniello, 2015. "On Games and Equilibria with Coherent Lower Expectations," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2015, pages 1-8, June.
    6. Dominiak, Adam & Lee, Min Suk, 2017. "Coherent Dempster–Shafer equilibrium and ambiguous signals," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 42-54.
    7. Muraviev, Igor & Riedel, Frank & Sass, Linda, 2017. "Kuhn’s Theorem for extensive form Ellsberg games," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 26-41.
    8. Gaurab Aryal & Ronald Stauber, 2014. "Trembles in extensive games with ambiguity averse players," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 57(1), pages 1-40, September.
    9. Stauber, Ronald, 2017. "Irrationality and ambiguity in extensive games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 409-432.
    10. Yang, Jian, 2018. "Game-theoretic modeling of players’ ambiguities on external factors," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 31-56.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Kauffeldt, T. Florian, 2016. "Strategic behavior of non-expected utility players in games with payoff uncertainty," Working Papers 0614, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    14. Stauber, Ronald, 2019. "A strategic product for belief functions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 38-64.
    15. Jian Yang, 2015. "Game-theoretic Modeling of Players' Ambiguities on External Factors," Papers 1510.06812, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2017.
    16. Burkhard C. Schipper, 2021. "The evolutionary stability of optimism, pessimism, and complete ignorance," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(3), pages 417-454, May.
    17. Calford, Evan M., 2020. "Uncertainty aversion in game theory: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 720-734.
    18. Dorian Beauchêne, 2016. "Solution concepts for games with ambiguous payoffs," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(2), pages 245-269, February.
    19. De Marco, Giuseppe & Romaniello, Maria, 2013. "A limit theorem for equilibria under ambiguous belief correspondences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 431-438.
    20. Pierpaolo Battigalli & Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci, 2015. "Self-Confirming Equilibrium and Model Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(2), pages 646-677, February.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:sef:csefwp:425. 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: Dr. Maria Carannante (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cssalit.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.