Stochastic Dominance Analysis Without the Independence Axiom

References

• Arditti FD (1967) Risk and the required return on equity. J. Finance 22:19–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Billingsley P (1995) Probability and Measure, 3rd ed. (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Borwein JM, Moors WB (2009) Stability of closedness of convex cones under linear mappings. J. Convex Anal. 16:699–705.Google Scholar
• Castagnoli E, Maccheroni F (1998) Generalized stochastic dominance and unanimous preferences. Giorgi G, Rossi F, eds. Generalized Convexity and Optimization for Economic and Financial Decisions (Pitagora, Bologna, Italy), 111–120.Google Scholar
• Cerreia-Vioglio S (2009) Maxmin expected utility on a subjective state space: Convex preferences under risk. Working paper, Università Bocconi, Milano, Italy.Google Scholar
• Cerreia-Vioglio S, Dillenberger D, Ortoleva P (2015) Cautious expected utility and the certainty effect. Econometrica 83:693–728.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cerreia-Vioglio S, Maccheroni F, Marinacci M, Montrucchio L (2011a) Uncertainty averse preferences. J. Econom. Theory 146:1275–1330.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cerreia-Vioglio S, Maccheroni F, Marinacci M, Montrucchio L (2014) Affine Gateaux differentials and the von Mises statistical calculus. Working paper, Università Bocconi, Milano, Italy.Google Scholar
• Cerreia-Vioglio S, Ghirardato P, Maccheroni F, Marinacci M, Siniscalchi M (2011b) Rational preferences under ambiguity. Econom. Theory 48:341–375.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chew SH, Nishimura N (1992) Differentiability, comparative statics, and non-expected utility preferences. J. Econom. Theory 56:294–312.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chew SH, Epstein L, Segal U (1991) Mixture symmetry and quadratic utility. Econometrica 59:139–163.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chew SH, Karni E, Safra Z (1987) Risk aversion in the theory of expected utility with rank dependent probabilities. J. Econom. Theory 42:370–381.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chiu WH (2005) Skewness preference, risk aversion, and the precedence relation on stochastic changes. Management Sci. 51:1816–1828.Link, Google Scholar
• Debreu G (1964) Continuity properties of Paretian utility. Internat. Econom. Rev. 5:285–293.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dekel E (1986) An axiomatic characterization of preferences under uncertainty: Weakening the independence axiom. J. Econom. Theory 40:304–318.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Diamond PA (1967) Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparison of utility: Comment. J. Political Econom. 75:765–766.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dubra J, Maccheroni F, Ok EA (2004) Expected utility theory without the completeness axiom. J. Econom. Theory 115:118–133.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eeckhoudt L, Schlesinger H (2006) Putting risk in its proper place. Amer. Econom. Rev. 96:280–289.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eeckhoudt L, Schlesinger H (2013) Higher-order risk attitudes. Dionne G, ed. Handbook of Insurance (Springer, New York), 41–57.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eeckhoudt L, Schlesinger H, Tsetlin I (2009) Apportioning of risks via stochastic dominance. J. Econom. Theory 144:994–1003.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Evren O (2008) On the existence of expected multi-utility representations. Econom. Theory 35:575–592.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fernholz LT (1983) Von Mises Calculus for Statistical Functionals (Springer, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ghirardato P, Siniscalchi M (2012) Ambiguity in the small and in the large. Econometrica 80:2827–2847.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ghirardato P, Maccheroni F, Marinacci M (2004) Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude. J. Econom. Theory 118:133–173.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hampel FR (1974) The influence curve and its role in robust estimation. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 69:383–393.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hardy GH, Littlewood JE, Polya G (1952) Inequalities (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Harsanyi JC (1955) Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility. J. Political Econom. 63:309–321.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huber PJ, Ronchetti EM (2009) Robust Statistics, 2nd ed. (Wiley, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–291.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karlin S, Novikoff A (1963) Generalized convex inequalities. Pacific J. Math. 13:1251–1279.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL (1992) On the foundations of prescriptive decision analysis. Edwards W, ed. Utility Theories: Measurements and Applications (Kluwer, Boston), 57–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kimball MS (1990) Precautionary saving in the small and in the large. Econometrica 58:53–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kőszegi B, Rabin M (2007) Reference-dependent risk attitudes. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97:1047–1073.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kraus A, Litzenberger RH (1976) Skewness preference and the valuation of risk assets. J. Finance 31:1085–1100.Google Scholar
• Kreps DM (1979) A representation theorem for “preference for flexibility”. Econometrica 47:565–577.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levy H (1992) Stochastic dominance and expected utility: Survey and analysis. Management Sci. 38:555–593.Link, Google Scholar
• Maccheroni F (2002) Maxmin under risk. Econom. Theory 19:823–831.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Machina MJ (1982) “Expected utility” analysis without the independence axiom. Econometrica 50:277–323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Markowitz HM (1952) Portfolio selection. J. Finance 7:77–91.Google Scholar
• Masatlioglu Y, Raymond C (2016) A behavioral analysis of stochastic reference dependence. Amer. Econom. Rev. 106(9):2760–2782.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Menezes C, Geiss C, Tressler J (1980) Increasing downside risk. Amer. Econom. Rev. 70:921–932.Google Scholar
• Muller A (1997) Stochastic orders generated by integrals: A unified study. Adv. Appl. Probab. 29:414–428.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nehring K (2009) Imprecise probabilistic beliefs as a context for decision-making under ambiguity. J. Econom. Theory 144:1054–1091.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Popoviciu T (1933) Sur quelques propriétés des fonctions d’une ou de deux variables reelles. Ph.D. thesis, Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris.Google Scholar
• Quiggin J (1982) A theory of anticipated utility. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 3:323–343.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rothschild M, Stiglitz JE (1970) Increasing risk: I. A definition. J. Econom. Theory 2:225–243.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schmidt U, Zank H (2008) Risk aversion in cumulative prospect theory. Management Sci. 54:208–216.Link, Google Scholar
• Smith JE (2004) Risk sharing, fiduciary duty, and corporate risk attitudes. Decision Anal. 1:114–127.Link, Google Scholar
• Smith JE, McCardle KF (2002) Structural properties of stochastic dynamic programs. Oper. Res. 50:796–809.Link, Google Scholar
• Tobin J (1958) Liquidity preference as behavior towards risk. Rev. Econom. Stud. 25:65–86.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tsiang SC (1972) The rationale of the mean-standard deviation analysis, skewness preference, and the demand for money. Amer. Econom. Rev. 62:354–371.Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty 5:297–323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Mises R (1947) On the asymptotic distribution of differentiable statistical functions. Ann. Math. Statist. 18:309–348.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wakker P (2010) Prospect Theory: For Risk and Ambiguity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang T (1993) Lp–Frechet differentiable preference and “local utility” analysis. J. Econom. Theory 61:139–159.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Whitmore GA (1970) Third-degree stochastic dominance. Amer. Econom. Rev. 60:457–459.Google Scholar