IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/ecnphi/v25y2009i03p335-356_99.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Two Out Of Three Ain'T Bad: A Comment On €Œthe Ambiguity Aversion Literature: A Critical Assessmentâ€

Author

Listed:
  • Siniscalchi, Marciano

Abstract

Al-Najjar and Weinstein (2009) propose to scrutinize the implications of recent theories of ambiguity in dynamic settings. They conclude that such implications are so unreasonable as to cast doubts on the legitimacy of the theories under consideration. The present paper argues that the seemingly unreasonable implications highlighted by Al-Najjar and Weinstein can be understood as the result of basic trade-offs that arise naturally in the presence of ambiguity. In particular, Al-Najjar and Weinstein are uncomfortable with the possibility that an ambiguity-averse individual may reject freely available information; however, this phenomenon simply reflects a trade-off between the intrinsic value of information, which is positive even in the presence of ambiguity, and the value of commitment.

Suggested Citation

  • Siniscalchi, Marciano, 2009. "Two Out Of Three Ain'T Bad: A Comment On €Œthe Ambiguity Aversion Literature: A Critical Assessmentâ€," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 335-356, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:25:y:2009:i:03:p:335-356_99
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0266267109990277/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Spyros Galanis, 2021. "Speculative trade and the value of public information," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 23(1), pages 53-68, February.
    2. Spyros Galanis, 2021. "Dynamic consistency, valuable information and subjective beliefs," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 71(4), pages 1467-1497, June.
    3. Ellis, Andrew, 2018. "On dynamic consistency in ambiguous games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 241-249.
    4. Baker, Erin & Bosetti, Valentina & Salo, Ahti, 2016. "Finding Common Ground when Experts Disagree: Belief Dominance over Portfolios of Alternatives," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 243147, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    5. Gadi Barlevy, 2011. "Robustness and Macroeconomic Policy," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 3(1), pages 1-24, September.
    6. Xiaoyu Cheng, 2020. "Ambiguous Persuasion: An Ex-Ante Formulation," Papers 2010.05376, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    7. Tommi Ekholm & Erin Baker, 2022. "Multiple Beliefs, Dominance and Dynamic Consistency," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(1), pages 529-540, January.
    8. Dominiak, Adam & Duersch, Peter & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2012. "A dynamic Ellsberg urn experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 625-638.
    9. Loïc Berger, 2011. "Smooth Ambiguity Aversion in the Small and in the Large," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2011-020, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    10. Gumen, Anna & Savochkin, Andrei, 2013. "Dynamically stable preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(4), pages 1487-1508.
    11. Hill, Brian, 2020. "Dynamic consistency and ambiguity: A reappraisal," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 289-310.
    12. Alex Stomper & Marie‐Louise Vierø, 2022. "Iterated expectations under rank‐dependent expected utility and implications for common valuation methods," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(2), pages 739-763, May.
    13. Kindy R. Sjahrir, 2018. "Formulating Regional Competitiveness Fiscal Policy based upon Leverage Factors for Indonesian Data," Working Papers in Economics and Development Studies (WoPEDS) 201804, Department of Economics, Padjadjaran University, revised Dec 2018.
    14. Daniel Heyen, 2018. "Ambiguity aversion under maximum-likelihood updating," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(3), pages 373-386, May.
    15. V. Yukalov & D. Sornette, 2011. "Decision theory with prospect interference and entanglement," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 283-328, March.
    16. Xiaoyu Cheng, 2019. "Relative Maximum Likelihood Updating of Ambiguous Beliefs," Papers 1911.02678, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2021.
    17. Pritsker, Matthew, 2013. "Knightian uncertainty and interbank lending," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 85-105.
    18. Vassili Vergopoulos, 2011. "Dynamic consistency for non-expected utility preferences," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 48(2), pages 493-518, October.
    19. Michael Greinecker & Christoph Kuzmics, 2022. "Limit Orders and Knightian Uncertainty," Papers 2208.10804, arXiv.org.
    20. Heyen, Daniel, 2018. "Ambiguity aversion under maximum-likelihood updating," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 80342, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:25:y:2009:i:03:p:335-356_99. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/eap .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.