Advertisement

Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 52, Issue 1, pp 1–20 | Cite as

Modeling attitudes towards uncertainty and risk through the use of choquet integral

  • Alain Chateauneuf
Modeling Beliefs and Preferences

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to present in a unified framework a survey of some results related to Choquet Expected Utility (CEU) models, a promising class of models introduced separately by Quiggin [35], Yaari [48] and Schmeidler [40, 41] which allow to separate attitudes towards uncertainty (or risk) from attitudes towards wealth, while respecting the first order stochastic dominance axiom.

Keywords

Choquet expected utility uncertainty aversion risk aversion 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    M. Allais, Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axiomes de l'école américaine, Econometrica 21 (1953) 503–546.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    M. Allais, The general theory of random choices in relation to the invariant cardinal utility function and the specific probability function, in:Risk, Decision and Rationality, ed. B. R. Munier (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1988) pp. 233–289.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    T. E. Armstrong, Comonotonicity, simplicial subdivision of cubes and non-linear expected utility via Choquet integrals, Working Paper, University of Maryland, MD (1990).Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    A. Chateauneuf, On the use of comonotonicity in the axiomatization of EURDP theory for arbitrary consequences, presented atFUR V, Durham, Working Paper, CERMSEM, Paris (1990).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    A. Chateauneuf, On the use of capacities in modeling uncertainty aversion and risk aversion. J. Math. Econ. 20 (1991) 343–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    A. Chateauneuf and M. Cohen, Risk seeking with diminishing marginal utility in a non-expected utility model, J. Risk and Uncertainty 9 (1994), to appear.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    A. Chateauneuf and J. Y. Jaffray, Some characterizations of lower probabilities and other monotone capacities through the use of Möbius inversion, Math. Social Sci. 17 (1989) 263–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    A. Chateauneuf, R. Kast and A. Lapied, Pricing in slack markets, Working Paper, Université de Paris I, GREQE Marseille, Université de Toulon (1992).Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    A. Chateauneuf, R. Kast and A. Lapied, Choquet pricing for financial markets with frictions, Working Paper, Université de Paris I, GREQE Marseille, Université de Toulon (1992).Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    S. H. Chew, An axiomatic generalization of the quasilinear mean and Gini mean with application to decision theory (1989), rewritten version of S. H. Chew, An axiomatization of the rank-dependent quasilinear mean generalizing the Gini mean and the quasilinear mean, Economics Working Paper #156, Johns Hopkins University (1985).Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    S. Chew and E. Karni, Choquet Expected Utility with finite state space: Commutativity and actindependence, (1992), J. Econ. Theory, to appear.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    S. Chew, E. Karni and Z. Safra, Risk aversion in the theory of expected utility with rank dependent preferences, J. Econ. Theory 42 (1987) 370–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    S. Chew and P. P. Wakker, Generalizing Choquet expected utility by weakening Savage's surething principle, Working Paper, University of California, University of Nijmegen (1991).Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    G. Choquet, Théorie des capacités, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) V (1953) 131–295.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    C. Dellacherie, Quelques commentaires sur les prolongements de capacités,Séminaire de Probabilités V, Strasbourg, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 191 (Springer, Berlin, 1970).Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    A. P. Dempster, Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping, Ann. Math. Statist. 38 (1967) 325–339.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    D. Denneberg, Distorted probabilities and insurance premiums, Working Paper, University of Bremen (1990).Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    D. Denneberg, Lectures on non-additive measure and integral, Preprint no. 42, University of Bremen (1992).Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    J. Dow and S. Werlang, Uncertainty aversion, risk aversion, and the optimal choice of portfolio, Econometrica 60 (1992) 197–204.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    R. Dyckherhoff and K. Mosler, Stochastic dominance with nonadditive probabilities, Zeits. Oper. Res. 37 (1993) 319–340.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    D. Ellsberg, Risk, ambiguity and the Savage axioms, Quart. J. Econ. 75 (1961) 643–669.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    L. G. Epstein, Behaviour under risk: Recent developments in theory and applications, Working Paper, University of Toronto (1990).Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    L. G. Epstein and T. Wang, Intertemporal asset pricing under Knightian uncertainty, Econometrica 62 (1994) 283–322.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    P. C. Fisburn,Nonlinear Preference and Utility Theory (The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1988).Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    I. Gilboa, Expected utility with purely subjective non-additive probabilities, J. Math. Econ. 16 (1987) 65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    I. Gilboa and D. Schmeidler, Additive representations of non-additive measures and the Choquet integral, Working Paper, Northwestern University, Tel Aviv University (1992).Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    I. Gilboa and D. Schmeidler, Canonical representation of set functions, Working Paper, Northwestern University, Tel Aviv University (1992).Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    G. H. Greco, Sulla rappresentazione di funzionali mediante integrali, Rend. Sem. Mat. Univ. Padova 66 (1982) 21–42.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    J. R. Green and B. Jullien, Ordinal independence in nonlinear utility theory, J. Risk and Uncertainty 1 (1988) 355–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    J. Y. Jaffray, Linear utility theory for belief functions, Oper. Res. Lett. 8 (1989) 107–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    P. Kischka and C. Puppe, Decisions under risk and uncertainty: A survey of recent developments, Zeits. Oper. Res. 36 (1992) 125–147.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    Y. Nakamura, Subjective expected utility with non-additive probabilities on finite state spaces, J. Econ. Theory 51 (1990) 346–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    Y. Nakamura, Rank dependent utility for arbitrary consequence spaces, Working Paper, University of Tsukuba (1991).Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    Y. Nakamura, Multisymmetric structures and non-expected utility, J. Math. Psychol. 36 (1992) 375–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    J. Quiggin, A theory of anticipated utility, J. Econ. Behavior and Organization 3 (1982) 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. [36]
    J. Quiggin and P. P. Wakker, The axiomatic basics of anticipated utility: A clarification, (1992), J. Econ. Theory, to appear.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    R. Sarin and P. P. Wakker, A simple axiomatization of nonadditive expected utility, Econometrica 60 (1992) 1255–1272.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    L. J. Savage,The Foundations of Statistics (Wiley, New York, 1954; 2nd ed. Dover, New York, 1972).Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    M. Scarsini, Dominance conditions in non-additive expected utility theory, J. Math. Econ. 21 (1992) 173–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. [40]
    D. Schmeidler, Integral representation without additivity, Proc. AMS 97 (1986) 255–261.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    D. Schmeidler, Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity, Econometrica 57 (1989) 571–587; first version: Subjective expected utility without additivity, Foerder Institute Working Paper (1982).Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    U. Segal, Anticipated utility: A measure representation approach, Ann. Oper. Res. 19 (1989) 359–373.Google Scholar
  43. [43]
    U. Segal, The measure representation: A correction, J. Risk and Uncertainty 6 (1993) 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. [44]
    G. Shafer,A Mathematical Theory of Evidence (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1976).Google Scholar
  45. [45]
    L. S. Shapley, Cores of convex games, Int. J. Game Theory 1 (1971) 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. [46]
    A. Tversky and D. Kahhneman, Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty, J. Risk and Uncertainty 5 (1992) 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. [47]
    J. von Neumann and O. Morgenstern,Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1947).Google Scholar
  48. [48]
    M. Yaari, The dual theory of choice under risk, Econometrica 55 (1987) 95–115.Google Scholar
  49. [49]
    M. Yaari, A controversial proposal concerning inequality measurement, J. Econ. Theory 44 (1988) 381–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. [50]
    P. P. Wakker, Continuous subjective expected utility with non-additive probabilities. J. Math. Econ. 18 (1989) 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. [51]
    P. P. Wakker,Additive Representations of Preferences (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1989).Google Scholar
  52. [52]
    P. P. Wakker, Under stochastic dominance Choquet-expected utility and anticipated utility are identical, Theory and Decision 29 (1990) 119–132.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  53. [53]
    P. P. Wakker, Characterizing optimism and pessimism directly through comonotonicity, J. Econ. Theory 52 (1990) 453–463.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  54. [54]
    P.P. Wakker, Separating marginal utility and probabilistic risk aversion, Theory and Decision 36 (1994) 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. [55]
    P. P. Wakker and A. Tversky, An axiomatization of cumulative prospect theory, J. Risk and Uncertainty 7 (1993) 147–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. [56]
    J. A. Weymark, Generalized Gini inequality indices, Math. Social Sci. 1 (1981) 409–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© J.C. Baltzer AG, Science Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alain Chateauneuf
    • 1
  1. 1.CermsemUniversité Paris IParis cedex 13France

Personalised recommendations