Economic Theory

, Volume 56, Issue 1, pp 109–124 | Cite as

Familiarity breeds completeness

Research Article


This is a study of the representations of subjective expected utility preferences that admit state-dependent incompleteness, and subjective expected utility preferences displaying non-comparability of acts from distinct sources. The notions familiar events and sources are defined and characterized. The relation greater familiarity on sources and increasing familiarity of a source are also defined and characterized.


Incomplete preferences Source familiarity Event familiarity State-dependent incomplete preferences 

JEL Classification



  1. Aumann, R.J.: Utility theory without the completeness axiom. Econometrica 30, 445–462 (1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anscombe, F.J., Aumann, R.J.: A definition of subjective probability. Ann. Math. Stat. 43, 199–205 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bewley, T.F.: Knightian decision theory: part I, Cowles Foundation discussion paper no. 807 (1986). (Published in Decision in Economics and, Finance, 25, 79–110 (2002))Google Scholar
  4. Chew, S.H., Sagi, J.: Small worlds: modeling attitudes towards source of uncertainty. J. Econ. Theory 139, 1–24 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chew, S.H., Ebstein, R.P., Zhong, S.: Ambiguity aversion and familiarity bias: evidence from behavioral and gene association studies. J. Risk Uncertain. 44, 1–18 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dunford, N., Schwartz, J.T.: Linear Operators Part I. Interscience Publishers, New York (1957)Google Scholar
  7. Galaabaatar, T., Karni, E.: Expected mutli-utility representations. Math. Soc. Sci. 64, 242–246 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Galaabaatar, T., Karni, E.: Subjective expected utility with incomplete preferences. Econometrica 81, 255–284 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ghirardato, P., Maccheroni, F., Marinacci, M.: Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude. J. Econ. Theory 118, 133–173 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gilboa, I., Schmeidler, D.: Maxmin expected utility with a nonunique prior. J. Math. Econ. 18, 141–153 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heath, C., Tversky, A.: Preference and belief: ambiguity and competency in choice under uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertain. 4, 5–28 (1991)Google Scholar
  12. Huberman, G.: Familiarity breeds investment. Rev. Finan. Stud. 14, 659–680 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Karni, E.: Continuity, completeness, and the definition of weak preferences. Math. Soc. Sci. 62, 123–125 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kreps, D.M.: Notes on the Theory of Choice. Westview Press, Boulder (1988)Google Scholar
  15. Nau, R.: The shape of incomplete preferences. Ann. Stat. 34, 2430–2448 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rigotti, L., Shannon, C.: Uncertainty and risk in financial markets. Econometrica 73, 203–243 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Seidenfeld, T., Schervish, M.J., Kadane, J.B.: A representation of partially ordered preferences. Ann. Stat. 23, 2168–2217 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. von Neumann, J., Morgenstern, O.: Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1947)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Warwick Business SchoolUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations