E-Capacities and the Ellsberg Paradox
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Ellsberg's (1961) famous paradox shows that decision-makers give events with ‘known’ probabilities a higher weight in their outcome evaluation. In the same article, Ellsberg suggests a preference representation which has intuitive appeal but lacks an axiomatic foundation. Schmeidler (1989) and Gilboa (1987) provide an axiomatisation for expected utility with non-additive probabilities. This paper introduces E-capacities as a representation of beliefs which incorporates objective information about the probability of events. It can be shown that the Choquet integral of an E-capacity is the Ellsberg representation. The paper further explores properties of this representation of beliefs and provides an axiomatisation for them.
- Anscombe, F. and Aumann, R.J. (1963), A definition of subjective probability, Annals of Mathematical Statistics34: 199–205.
- Camerer, C. and Weber, M. (1992), Recent developments in modeling preferences: uncertainty and ambiguity, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty5: 325–370.
- Choquet, G. (1953), Theory of capacities, Annales Institut Fourier5: 131–295.
- Denneberg, D. (1995), Extensions of measurable space and linear representation of the Choquet integral, Mathematik-ArbeitspapiereNo. 45, Universität Bremen.
- Dow, J. and Werlang, S.R.d.C. (1992), Uncertainty aversion, risk aversion, and the optimal choice of portfolio, Econometrica60: 197–204.
- Dow, J. and Werlang, S.R.d.C. (1994), Nash equilibrium under Knightian uncertainty: breaking down backward induction, Journal of Economic Theory64: 305–324.
- Eichberger, J. and Kelsey, D. (1996a), Uncertainty aversion and dynamic consistency, International Economic Review37: 625–640.
- Eichberger, J. and Kelsey, D. (1996b), Uncertainty aversion and preference for randomisation, Journal of Economic Theory71: 31–43.
- Eichberger, J. and Kelsey, D. (1997a), Non-additive beliefs and game theory, Mimeo, Universität des Saarlandes.
- Eichberger, J. and Kelsey, D. (1997b), Signaling games with uncertainty,Mimeo, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
- Eichberger, J. and Kelsey, D. (1997c), Free riders do not like uncertainty,Mimeo, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
- Eichberger, J. and Kelsey, D. (1997d), Education signaling and uncertainty, Mimeo, Universität des Saarlandes.
- Ellsberg, D. (1961), Risk, ambiguity and the savage axioms, Quarterly Journal of Economics75: 643–669.
- Epstein, L.G. and LeBreton, M. (1993), Dynamically consistent beliefs must be Bayesian, Journal of Economic Theory61: 1–22.
- Fishburn, P.C. (1970), Utility Theory for Decision Making. New York: Wiley.
- Ghirardato, P. (1994), Coping with ignorance: unforeseen contingencies and nonadditive uncertainty,Mimeo, University of California at Berkeley.
- Gilboa, I. (1987), Expected utility theory with purely subjective non-additive probabilities, Journal of Mathematical Economics16: 65–88.
- Gilboa, I. and Schmeidler, D. (1993), Updating ambiguous beliefs, Journal of Economic Theory59: 33–49.
- Gilboa, I. and Schmeidler, D. (1994), Additive representations of non-additive measures and the Choquet integral, Annals of Operations Research52: 43–65.
- Haller, H. (1996), Non-additive beliefs in solvable games, Mimeo, Virginia Polytechnic Institute WP E-95-14.
- Jaffray, J.-Y. (1989), Linear utility theory for belief functions, Operations Research Letters8: 107–112.
- Jaffray, J.-Y. (1992), Bayesian updating and belief functions, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics22: 1144–1152.
- Klibanoff, P. (1994), Uncertainty, decision and normal form games, Mimeo, Northwestern University.
- Lo, K.C. (1996), Equilibrium in beliefs under uncertainty, Journal of Economic Theory71: 443–484.
- Machina, M.J. and Schmeidler, D. (1992), A more robust definition of subjective probability, Econometrica60: 745–780.
- Marinacci, M. (1996), Ambiguous games, Mimeo, Northwestern University.
- Mukerji, S. (1997a), Understanding the non-additive probability decision model, Economic Theory9: 23–46.
- Mukerji, S. (1997b),Ambiguity aversion and uncompleteness of contractual form, American Economic Review, forthcoming.
- Saarin, R. and Wakker, P. (1992), A simple axiomatisation of non-additive expected utility, Econometrica60: 1255–1272.
- Savage, L. (1954), Foundations of Statistics, New York: Wiley.
- Schmeidler, D. (1989), Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity, Econometrica57: 571–587.
- Shafer, G. (1976), A Mathematical Theory of Evidence, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Shafer, G. (1990), Perspectives on the theory and practice of belief functions, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning4: 323–362.
- Von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. (1947), Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, 2nd edition, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- E-Capacities and the Ellsberg Paradox
Theory and Decision
Volume 46, Issue 2 , pp 107-138
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Kluwer Academic Publishers
- Additional Links
- Ellsberg paradox
- Uncertainty aversion
- Choquet integral
- Non-additive probabilities
- Industry Sectors