The price for information about probabilities and its relation with risk and ambiguity

In this article, ambiguity attitude is measured through the maximum price a decision maker is willing to pay to know the probability of an event. Two problems are examined in which the decision maker faces an act: in one case, buying information implies playing a lottery, while, in the other case, buying information gives also the option to avoid playing the lottery. In both decision settings, relying on the Choquet expected utility model, we study how the decision maker??s risk and ambiguity attitudes affect the reservation price for ambiguity resolution. These effects are analyzed for different levels of ambiguity of the act. Operating instructions for the elicitation of the reservation price for ambiguity resolution in an experimental setting are provided at the end of the article.     

Effects of Uncertainty Aversion on the Call Option Market

This article examines the effects of uncertainty aversion in competitive call option markets using a partial equilibrium model with the Choquet-expected utility setup. We find that the trading volume of a call option is negatively affected by uncertainty aversion, whereas the price of the call is practically independent of it.      

Uncertainty with Partial Information on the Possibility of the Events

The Choquet expected utility model deals with nonadditive probabilities (or capacities). Their dependence on the information the decision-maker has about the possibility of the events is taken into account. Two kinds of information are examined: interval information (for instance, the percentage of white balls in an urn is between 60% and 100%) and comparative information (for instance, the information that there are more white balls than black ones). Some implications are shown with regard to the core of the capacity and to two additive measures which can be derived from capacities: the Shapley value and the nucleolus. Interval information bounds prove to be satisfied by all probabilities in the core, but they are not necessarily satisfied by the nucleolus (when the core is empty) and the Shapley value. We must introduce the constrained nucleolus in order for these bounds to be satisfied, while the Shapley value does not seem to be adjustable. On the contrary, comparative information inequalities prove to be not necessarily satisfied by all probabilities in the core and we must introduce the constrained core in order for these inequalities be satisfied. However, both the nucleolus and the Shapley value satisfy the comparative information inequalities, and the Shapley value does it more strictly than the nucleolus. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

A Bayesian hierarchical model for estimating the cost of postponing the cyclo-cross national championships

In early January 2015, the multi-event national cyclo-cross bicycle races were set to take place in Austin, Texas. Cyclo-cross has a rich history in this country, and throughout the world, attracting huge crowds and competitors. Being primarily a winter sport, these athletes often compete in harsh conditions, which include rain, snow, mud, and revel in the excitement that comes with such elements. Unfortunately, the competition was postponed mid-event when a local arborist group protested to the parks department. The issue: there was too much mud, in an event where many spectators and racers alike hope for such conditions. For many competitors, the postponement generated additional expenses, such as flights, hotels, and car rentals. Although people on opposite sides of the debate may greatly disagree, we instead focus on the competitors themselves. We analyze the financial impact of the disagreement using a hierarchical Bayesian mixed model which accounts for heterogeneity within the costs endured by the event's participants.     

Social loss with respect to the core of an economy

The dual notion of Pareto-efficiency (i.e., individual utilities cannot be reached with fewer resources than those of the allocation under consideration) is used in order to define the resources-core. A measure of social loss with respect to the core is then introduced, more or less as already done with respect to the locus of efficient allocations. Received: 4 December 2000/Accepted: 14 June 2001     

Uncertainty aversion and aversion to increasing uncertainty

According to the original Ellsberg (1961) examples there is uncertainty version if the decision maker prefers to bet on an urn of known composition rather than on an urn of unknown composition. According to another definition (Schmeidler, 1989), there is uncertainty aversion if any convex combination of two acts is preferred to the least favorable of these acts. We show that these two definitions differ: while the first one truly refers to uncertainty aversion, the second one refers to aversion to increasing uncertainty. Besides, with reference to Choquet Expected Utility theory, uncertainty aversion means that there exists the core of a capacity, while aversion to increasing uncertainty means that the capacity is convex. Consequently, aversion to increasing uncertainty implies uncertainty aversion, but the opposite does not hold. We also show that a completely analogous situation holds for the case of risk and we define a set of risk and uncertainty premiums according to the previous analysis.     

On the definition of risk aversion

Two definitions of risk aversion have recently been proposed for non-expected utility theories of choice under uncertainty: the former refers the measure of risk aversion (Montesano 1985, 1986 and 1988) directly to the risk premium (i.e. to the difference between the expected value of the action under consideration and its certainty equivalent); the latter defines risk aversion as a decreasing preference for an increasing risk (introduced as mean preserving spreads) (Chew, Karni and Safra 1987, Machina 1987, Röell 1987, Yaari 1987).When the von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function exists both these definitions indicate an agent as a risk averter if his or her utility function is concave. Consequently, the two definitions are equivalent. However, they are no longer equivalent when the von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function does not exist and a non-expected utility theory is assumed. Examples can be given which show how the risk aversion of the one definition can coexist with the risk attraction of the other. Indeed the two definitions consider two different questions: the risk premium definition specifically concerns risk aversion, while the mean preserving spreads definition concerns the increasing (with risk) risk aversion.The mean preserving spreads definition of risk aversion, i.e. the increasing (with risk) risk aversion, requires a special kind of concavity for the preference function (that the derivatives with respect to probabilities are concave in the respective consequences). The risk premium definition of local risk aversion requires that the probability distribution dominates on the average the distribution of the derivatives of the preference function with respect to consequences. Besides, when the local measure of the first order is zero, there is risk aversion according to the measure of the second order if the preference function is concave with respect to consequences.Yaari's (1969) measure of risk aversion is closely linked to the r.p. measure of the second order. Its sign does not indicate risk aversion (if positive) or attraction (if negative) when the measure of the first order is not zero (i.e., in Yaari's language, when subjective odds differ from the market odds).     

On some aspects of decision theory under uncertainty: rationality,price-probabilities and the Dutch book argument

Theory and Decision - Choice under uncertainty is treated in economics by different approaches. We can distinguish three of them, two of which concern individual choice, while the third frames...