|
EconStor >
Northwestern University >
Kellogg School of Management - Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science, Northwestern University >
Discussion Papers, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University >
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/10419/59666
|
| | |
Full metadata record
| DC Field | | Value | | Language |
| dc.contributor.author | | Saito, Kota | | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | | 2012-07-12T12:34:11Z | | - |
| dc.date.available | | 2012-07-12T12:34:11Z | | - |
| dc.date.issued | | 2011 | | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | | http://hdl.handle.net/10419/59666 | | - |
| dc.description.abstract | | Raiffa (1961) criticizes ambiguity-averse preferences by claiming that hedging is possible with randomization of choices. We argue that the timing of randomization is crucial for hedging. Ex-ante randomizations, which are randomizations before a state is realized, could provide only ex-ante hedging but not ex-post hedging, in contrast to ex-post randomizations, which are randomizations after a state is realized. However, these two randomizations have been assumed to be indifferent under the reversal of order axiom proposed by Anscombe and Aumann (1963). We, therefore, propose a weaker axiom, the indifference axiom, which allows heterogeneous attitudes toward the timing of randomization. By using this new axiom as well as standard axioms, we provide an extension of Gilboa and Schmeidler's (1989) Maxmin preferences that treats a preference for ex-ante randomizations separately from a preference for ex-post randomizations. In the representation, a single parameter characterizes a preference for ex-ante randomizations. By parsimoniously changing only the value of that single parameter, the representation can be consistent with Raiffa's (1961) normative argument as well as recent experimental evidence. | | en_US |
| dc.language.iso | | eng | | en_US |
| dc.publisher | | Northwestern Univ., Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science Evanston | | en_US |
| dc.relation.ispartofseries | | Discussion Paper, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science 1524 | | en_US |
| dc.subject.jel | | D81 | | en_US |
| dc.subject.jel | | D03 | | en_US |
| dc.subject.ddc | | 330 | | en_US |
| dc.subject.keyword | | ambiguity | | en_US |
| dc.subject.keyword | | randomization | | en_US |
| dc.subject.keyword | | Ellsberg paradox | | en_US |
| dc.subject.keyword | | maxmin utility | | en_US |
| dc.title | | Preference for randomization and ambiguity aversion | | en_US |
| dc.type | | Working Paper | | en_US |
| dc.identifier.ppn | | 656631163 | | en_US |
| dc.rights | | http://www.econstor.eu/dspace/Nutzungsbedingungen | | en_US |
| Appears in Collections: | | Discussion Papers, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University
|
Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
|