Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T19:50:40.786Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

REJOINDER: THE “AMBIGUITY AVERSION LITERATURE: A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

Nabil I. Al-Najjar  and
Jonathan Weinstein
Nabil I. Al-Najjar
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Jonathan Weinstein
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The pioneering contributions of Bewley, Gilboa and Schmeidler highlighted important weaknesses in the foundations of economics and game theory. The Bayesian methodology on which these fields are based does not answer such basic questions as what makes beliefs reasonable, or how agents should form beliefs and expectations. Providing the initial impetus for debating these issues is a contribution that will have the lasting value it deserves.

Type
Essay
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 25 , Issue 3: Economics and Philosophy on Ambiguity Aversion , November 2009 , pp. 357 - 369
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Al-Najjar, N. I. 2009. Decision makers as statisticians: diversity, ambiguity and learning. Econometrica. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Aumann, R. J. 1997. Rationality and bounded rationality. Games and Economic Behavior, 21 (1–2): 2–14.Google Scholar
Bewley, T. 1986. Knightian decision theory: Part I. Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper no. 807.Google Scholar
Bewley, T. 2002. Knightian decision theory. Part I. Decisions in Economics and Finance 25 (2): 79–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D. and Welch, I. 1992. A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades. Journal of Political Economy 100 (5): 992.Google Scholar
Cerreia, S., Maccheroni, F., Marinacci, M. and Montrucchio, L. 2008. Uncertainty Averse Preferences. Working paper; Collegio Carlo Alberto.Google Scholar
Epstein, L. and Schneider, M. 2003. Recursive multiple-priors. Journal of Economic Theory 113: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, C. and Tversky, A. 1995. Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance. Quarterly Journal of Economics 110: 585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilboa, I. and Schmeidler, D. 1994. Additive representations of nonadditive measures and the choquet integral. Annals of Operations Research (Historical Archive) 52 (1): 43–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleick, J. 2003. Isaac Newton. Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Gottlieb, D. 2009. Imperfect memory and choice under risk. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halevy, Y. and Feltkamp, V. 2005. A Bayesian approach to uncertainty aversion. Review of Economic Studies 72 (2): 449–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, C. and Tversky, A. 1991. Preference and belief: Ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 4 (1): 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klibanoff, P., Marinacci, M. and Mukerji, S. 2009. Recursive smooth ambiguity preferences. Journal of Economic Theory 144: 930–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maccheroni, F., Marinacci, M. and Rustichini, A. 2006. Ambiguity aversion, malevolent nature, and the variational representation of preferences. Econometrica 74: 1447–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukerji, S. 1997. Understanding the nonadditive probability decision model. Economic Theory 9 (1): 23–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozdenoren, E. and Peck, J. 2008. Ambiguity aversion, games against nature, and dynamic consistency. Games and Economic Behavior 62 (1): 106–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, L. 2001. Analogies, adaptation, and anomalies. Journal of Economic Theory 97 (2): 320–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, L. J. 1954. The foundations of statistics. New York:John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185 4157): 1124–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed