Download
Abstract
We propose and axiomatize a new model of incomplete preferences under uncertainty, which we call hope-and-prepare preferences. An act f is considered more desirable than an act g when, and only when, both an optimistic evaluation, computed as the welfare level attained in a best-case scenario, and a pessimistic one, computed as the welfare level attained in a worst-case scenario, rank f above g. Our comparison criterion involves multiple priors, as best and worst cases are determined among sets of probability distributions. We make the case that, compared to existing incomplete criteria under ambiguity, hope-and-prepare preferences adress the trade-off between conviction and decisiveness in a new way, which is more favorable to decisiveness.