Allais, Ellsberg, and preferences for hedging
نویسندگان
چکیده
Two of the most well known regularities observed in preferences under risk and uncertainty are ambiguity aversion and the Allais paradox. We study the behavior of an agent who can display both tendencies simultaneously. We introduce a novel notion of preference for hedging that applies to both objective lotteries and uncertain acts. We show that this axiom, together with other standard ones, is equivalent to a representation in which the agent (i) evaluates ambiguity using multiple priors, as in the model of Gilboa and Schmeidler (1989), and (ii) evaluates objective lotteries by distorting probabilities, as in the rank dependent utility model, but using the worst from a set of distortions. We show that a preference for hedging is not sufficient to guarantee Ellsberg-like behavior if the agent violates expected utility for objective lotteries; we provide a novel axiom that characterizes this case, linking the distortions for objective and subjective bets.
منابع مشابه
Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California 91125 Objective Lotteries as Ambiguous Objects: Allais, Ellsberg, and Hedging
We derive axiomatically a model in which the Decision Maker can exhibit simultaneously both the Allais and the Ellsberg paradoxes in the standard setup of Anscombe and Aumann (1963). Using the notion of ‘subjective’, or ‘outcome’ mixture of Ghirardato et al. (2003), we define a novel form of hedging for objective lotteries, and introduce a novel axiom which is a generalized form of preferences ...
متن کاملObjective Lotteries as Ambiguous Objects: Allais, Ellsberg, and Hedging∗
We derive axiomatically a model in which the Decision Maker can exhibit simultaneously both the Allais and the Ellsberg paradoxes in the standard setup of Anscombe and Aumann (1963). Using the notion of ‘subjective’, or ‘outcome’ mixture of Ghirardato et al. (2003), we define a novel form of hedging for objective lotteries, and introduce a novel axiom which is a generalized form of preferences ...
متن کاملConsistent Preferences with Reversals
We propose an axiomatic framework for updating complete preference orderings without the monotonicity axiom. The induced preference reversals are justified on the basis of a normative interpretation that reconciles consequentialism with adequate forms of choice consistency. We conclude that preferences need not, and in some contexts even should not be recursive, thus confirming the intuition of...
متن کاملRationality Crossovers*
This paper explores whether the power of arbitrage to induce more rational behavior in market and nonmarket settings extends to diverse decision-making tasks over preferences for gambles. We examine how arbitrage in a preference reversal setting affects behavior for the valuation of low probability food safety risks, the Allais Paradox, and the Ellsberg paradox. We design a three-stage experime...
متن کاملRationality Crossovers By : Todd L . Cherry & Jason
Herein we further explore whether the power of arbitrage to induce people to exhibit more rational behavior extends to diverse decision-making tasks and stated valuation over preferences for gambles. We examine how arbitrage in a preference reversal setting affects behavior for the valuation of low probability food safety risks, the Allais Paradox, and the Ellsberg paradox. We design a three-st...
متن کامل