Objective Lotteries as Ambiguous Objects: Allais, Ellsberg, and Hedging∗
نویسندگان
چکیده
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 for hedging. We show that this axiom, together with other standard ones, is equivalent to a representation in which the agent reacts to ambiguity using multiple priors like the MaxMin Expected Utility model of Gilboa and Schmeidler (1989), generating an Ellsberg-like behavior, while at the same time, she treats also objective lotteries as ‘ambiguous objects,’ and use a fixed (and unique) set of priors to evaluate them – generating an Allais-like behavior. We show that this representation is equivalent to one in which the agent evaluates lotteries using a set of concave rank-dependent utility functionals. A comparative notion of preference for hedging is also introduced. JEL: D81
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 کاملAllais, Ellsberg, and preferences for hedging
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...
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 کاملUncertainty and Compound Lotteries: Calibration1
The Ellsberg experiments provide an intuitive illustration that the Savage approach, which reduces subjective uncertainty to risk, is not rich enough to capture many decision makerspreferences. Recent experimental evidence suggests that decision makers reduce uncertainty to compound risk. This work presents a theoretical model of decision making in which preferences are de ned on both Savage s...
متن کاملEllsberg Revisited: an Experimental Study
Ellsbergs experiment is extended to study the association between ambiguity aversion and violation of reduction of compound lotteries. It is shown that the two phenomena are strongly associated. Further analysis reveals two di¤erent forms of association, which correspond to alternative theoretical models that account for ambiguity attitudes. JEL Classi cation: D81, C91.
متن کامل