Skip to main content
Log in

Revealed Likelihood and Knightian Uncertainty

  • Published:
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nonadditive expected utility models were developed for explaining preferences in settings where probabilities cannot be assigned to events. In the absence of probabilities, difficulties arise in the interpretation of likelihoods of events. In this paper we introduce a notion of revealed likelihood that is defined entirely in terms of preferences and that does not require the existence of (subjective) probabilities. Our proposal is that decision weights rather than capacities are more suitable measures of revealed likelihood in rank-dependent expected utility models and prospect theory. Applications of our proposal to the updating of beliefs and to the description of attitudes towards ambiguity are presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdellaoui, M. (1998). “Eliciting Utilities and Decision Weights under Cumulative Prospect Theory,” working paper, GRID, ENS, Cachan, France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernasconi, M. (1994). “Nonlinear Preference and Two-Stage Lotteries: Theories and Evidence,” The Economic Journal 104, 54–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, M.H., Coffey, G, Mellers, B.A., and Weiss, R., (1992). “Utility Measurement: Configural-Weight Theory and the Judge's Point of View,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 18, 331–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, M.H. and McIntosh, W.R. (1996). “Violations of Branch Independence in Choices between Gambles,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 67, 91–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, M.H. and Chavez, A. (1997). “Tests of Theories of Decision Making: Violations of Branch Independence and Distribution Independence,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 71, 161–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C.F. and Ho, T.-H. (1994). “Violations of the Betweenness Axiom and Nonlinearity in Probability,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 8, 167–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C.F. and Weber, M. (1992). “Recent Developments in Modelling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 325–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. and Jaffray, J.Y. (1988). “Certainty Effect versus Probability Distortion: An Experimental Analysis of Decision Making under Risk,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 14, 554–560.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curley, S.P. and Yates, J.F. (1989). “An Empirical Evaluation of Descriptive Models of Ambiguity Reactions in Choice Situations,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 33, 397–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dempster, A.P. (1967). “Upper and Lower Probabilities Induced by a Multivalued Mapping,” Annals of Mathematical Statistics 38, 325–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denneberg, D. (1994). “Conditioning (Updating) Non-Additive Measures,” Annals of Operations Research 52, 21–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dow, J. and Werlang, S.R.C. (1992). “Excess Volatility of Stock Prices and Knightian Uncertainty,” European Economic Review 36, 631–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dow, J. and Werlang, S.R.C. (1994). “Nash Equilibrium under Knightian Uncertainty: Breaking Down Backward Induction,” Journal of Economic Theory 64, 304–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eichberger, J. and Kelsey, D. (1994). “Non-Additive Beliefs and Game Theory,” working paper 94-01, Dept. of Economics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eichberger, J. and Kelsey, D. (1996). “Uncertainty Aversion and Dynamic Consistency,” International Economic Review 37, 625–640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellsberg, D. (1961). “Risk, Ambiguity and the Savage Axioms,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 75, 643–669.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, L.G. and Le Breton, M. (1993). “Dynamically Consistent Beliefs Must be Bayesian,” Journal of Economic Theory 61, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, L.G. and Wang, T. (1994). “Intertemporal Asset Pricing under Knightian Uncertainty,” Econometrica 62, 283–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, L.G. and Zhang, J. (1998). “Subjective Probabilities on Subjectively Unambiguous Events,” Dept. of Economics, University of Toronto, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, C.R., Rogers, B.A. and Tversky, A. (1996). “Options Traders Exhibit Subadditive Decision Weights,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 13, 5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilboa, I. (1985). “Subjective Distortions of Probabilities and Non-Additive Probabilities,” Working paper 18–85, Foerder Institute for Economic Research, Tel-Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Israel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilboa, I. (1987). “Expected Utility with Purely Subjective Non-Additive Probabilities,” Journal of Mathematical Economics 16, 65–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilboa, I. (1989a). “Duality in Non-Additve Expected Utility Theory,” Annals of Operations Research 19, 405–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilboa, I. (1989b). “Additivations of Non-Additive Measures,” Mathematics of Operations Research 14, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilboa, I. and Schmeidler, D. (1993). “Updating Ambiguous Beliefs,” Journal of Economic Theory 59, 33–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groes, E., Jacobsen, H.J., Sloth, B., and Tranaes, T. (1998). “NashEquilibrium with Lower Probabilities,” Theory and Decision 44, 37–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haller, H. (1995). “Non-Additive Beliefs in Solvable Games,” Dept. of Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffray, J.Y. (1989). “Linear Utility Theory for Belief Functions,” Operations Research Letters 8, 107–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffray, J.Y. (1992). “Bayesian Updating and Belief Functions,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 22, 1144–1152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kachelmeier, S.J. and Shehata, M. (1992). “Examining Risk Preferences under High Monetary Incentives: Exprimental Evidence from the People's Republic of China,” American Economic Review 82, 1120–1141; comment see American Economic Review 84, 1994, 1104–1106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadane, J.B. and Winkler, R.L. (1988). “Separating Probability Elicitation from Utilities,” Journal of the American Statistical Association 83, 357–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karni, E. (1996). “Probabilities and Beliefs,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 13, 249–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karni, E. and Safra, Z. (1990). “Rank-Dependent Probabilities,” Economic Journal 100, 487–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keynes, J.M. (1921). A Treatise on Probability. London: McMillan. Second edition 1948.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klibanoff, P. (1995). “Dynamic Choice with Uncertainty Aversion,” Northwestern University.

  • Knight, F.H. (1921). Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lattimore, P.M., Baker, J.R., and Witte, A.D. (1992). “The Influence of Probability on Risky Choice,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 17, 377–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, E. (1996). “An Approach to the Conditional Expectation of Non-Additive Probabilities,” School of Mathematical Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Israel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lo, K.C. (1995). “Extensive Form Games with Uncertainty Averse Players,” Dept. of Economics, University of Toronto, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R.D. and Fishburn, P.C. (1991). “Rank-and Sign-Dependent Linear Utility Models for Finite First-Order Gambles,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 4, 29–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machina, M.J. (1989). “Dynamic Consistency and Non-Expected Utility Models of Choice under Uncertainty,” Journal of Economic Literature 27, 1622–1688.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machina, M.J. and Schmeidler, D. (1992). “A More Robust Definition of Subjective Probability,” Econometrica 60, 745–780.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nehring, K. (1994). “On the Interpretation of Sarin and Wakker's “A Simple Axiomatization of Nonadditive Expected Utility”,” Econometrica 62, 935–938.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prelec, D. (1995). “The Probability Weighting Function,” Econometrica, forthcoming.

  • Preston, M.G. and Baratta, P. (1948). “An Experimental Study of the Auction Value of an Uncertain Outcome,” American Journal of Psychology 61, 183–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarin, R.K. and Wakker, P.P. (1992). “A Simple Axiomatization of Nonadditive Expected Utility,” Econometrica 60, 1255–1272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, L.J. (1954). The Foundations of Statistics. New York: Wiley. (Second edition 1972, New York: Dover.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmeidler, D. (1989). “Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity,” Econometrica 57, 571–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafer, G. (1976). A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starmer, C. and Sugden, R. (1989). “Violations of the Independence Axiom in Common Ratio Problems: An Experimental Test of Some Competing Hypotheses,” Annals of Operations Research 19, 79–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. and Fox, C. (1995). “Weighing Risk and Uncertainty,” Psychological Review 102, 269–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1992). “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 297–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. and Wakker, P.P. (1995). “Risk Attitudes and Decision Weights,” Econometrica 63, 1255–1280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. and Wakker, P.P. (1998). “On the Composition of Risk Preference and Belief,” Medical Decision Making Unit, Leiden University, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viscusi, W.K. (1989). “Prospective Reference Theory: Toward an Explanation of the Paradoxes,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2, 235–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villegas, C. (1964). “On Quantitative Probability σ-Algebras,” Annals of Mathematical Statistics 35, 1787–1796.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, G. (1994). “An Empirical Test of Ordinal Independence,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 9, 39–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, G. and Gonzalez, R. (1996). “Curvature of the Probability Weighting Function,” Management Science 42, 1676–1690.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, G and Gonzalez, R. (1997). “Nonlinear Decision Weights in Choice under Uncertainty,” Management Science, forthcoming.

  • Yaari, M.E. (1965). “Convexity in the Theory of Choice under Risk,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 79, 278-290.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

SARIN, R., WAKKER, P. Revealed Likelihood and Knightian Uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 16, 223–250 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007703002999

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007703002999

Navigation