Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Preference for Randomization - Ambiguity Aversion and Inequality Aversion

Authors: Kaito Sato;

Preference for Randomization - Ambiguity Aversion and Inequality Aversion

Abstract

In Anscombe and Aumann's (1963) domain, there are two types of mixtures. One is an ex-ante mixture, or a lottery on acts. The other is an ex-post mixture, or a state-wise mixture of acts. These two mixtures have been assumed to be indifferent under the Reversal of Order axiom. However, we argue that the difference between these two mixtures is crucial in some important contexts. Under ambiguity aversion, an ex-ante mixture could provide only ex-ante hedging but not ex-post hedging. Under inequality aversion, an ex-ante mixture could provide only ex-ante equality but not ex-post equality. We provide a unified framework that treats a preference for exante mixtures separately from a preference for ex-post mixtures. In particular, two representations are characterized for each context. One representation for ambiguity aversion is an extension of Gilboa and Schmeidler's (1989) Maxmin preferences. The other representation for inequality aversion is an extension of Fehr and Schmidt's (1999) Piecewise preferences. In both representations, a single parameter characterizes a preference for ex-ante mixtures. For both representations, instead of the Reversal of Order axiom, we propose a weaker axiom, the Indifference axiom, which is a criterion, suggested in Raiffa's (1961) critique, for evaluating lotteries on acts. These models are consistent with much recent experimental evidence in each context.

Keywords

D81, Ambiguity, inequality, ddc:330, other-regarding preferences, D03, randomization, Ellsberg paradox, Ambiguity; randomization; Ellsberg paradox; other–regarding preferences; inequality; maxmin utility., maxmin utility, jel: jel:D81, jel: jel:D03

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!