Economic Theory

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 175–212 | Cite as

Exactly what happens after the Anscombe–Aumann race?

Representing preferences in vague environments
  • Marie-Louise VierøEmail author
Research Article


This paper derives a representation of preferences for a choice theory with vague environments; vague in the sense that the agent does not know the precise lotteries over outcomes conditional on states. Instead, he knows only a possible set of these lotteries for each state. Thus, this paper’s main departure from the standard subjective expected utility model is to relax an assumption about the environment, rather than weakening the axiomatic structure. My model is consistent with the behavior observed in the Ellsberg experiment. It can capture the same type of behavior as the multiple priors models, but can also result in behavior that is different from both the behavior implied by standard subjective expected utility models and the behavior implied by the multiple priors models.


Decision theory Vagueness Utility Optimism 

JEL Classification

D800 D810 D000 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ahn D.S.: Ambiguity without a state space. Rev Econ Stud 75, 3–28 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anscombe F.J., Aumann R.J.: A definition of subjective probability. Ann Math Stat 34, 199–205 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bewley, T.F.: Knightian decision theory: Part I. Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper, vol. 807. Yale University (1986)Google Scholar
  4. Dekel E., Lipman B.L., Rustichini A.: Representing preferences with a unique subjective state space. Econometrica 69, 891–934 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ellsberg D.: Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. Q J Econ 75, 643–669 (1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Epstein L.G., Marinacci M., Seo K.: Coarse contingencies and ambiguity. Theor Econ 2, 355–394 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. Epstein L.G., Schneider M.: Recursive multiple-priors. J Econ Theory 113, 1–31 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gajdos T., Hayashi T., Tallon J.-M., Vergnaud J.-C.: Attitude toward imprecise information. J Econ Theory 140, 27–65 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ghirardato P.: Coping with ignorance: unforeseen contingencies and non-additive uncertainty. Econ Theory 17, 247–276 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ghirardato P., Maccheroni F., Marinacci M.: Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude. J Econ Theory 118, 133–173 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gilboa I., Schmeidler D.: Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior. J Math Econ 18, 141–153 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Holmström B.: Moral hazard and observability. Bell J Econ 10, 74–91 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Klibanoff P., Marinacci M., Mukerji S.: A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity. Econometrica 73, 1849–1892 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kreps D.M.: A representation theorem for preference for flexibility. Econometrica 47, 565–577 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kreps D.M.: Notes on the Theory of Choice. Westview Press, Boulder (1988)Google Scholar
  16. Kreps D.M.: Static choice in the presence of unforeseen contingenies. In: Dasgupta, P., Gale, D., Hart, O., Maskin, E. (eds) Economic Analysis of Markets and Games, pp. 258–281. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  17. Manski C.F., Tamer E.: Inference on regressions with interval data on a regressor or outcome. Econometrica 70, 519–546 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mas-Colell A., Whinston M.D., Green J.R.: Microeconomic Theory. Oxford University Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  19. Mukerji S.: Understanding the nonadditive probability decision model. Econ Theory 9, 23–46 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Olszewski W.: Preferences over sets of lotteries. Rev Econ Stud 74, 567–595 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ozdenoren E.: Completing the state space with subjective states. J Econ Theory 105, 531–539 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nehring K.: Preference for flexibility in a Savage framework. Econometrica 67, 101–119 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Savage L.J.: The Foundations of Statistics. Dover Publications, New York (1954)Google Scholar
  24. Vierø, M.-L.: Contracting in vague environments. QED Working Paper, vol. 1106. Queen’s University (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations