The effect of elicitation methods on ambiguity aversion: an experimental investigation
AbstractIn this paper we elicit preferences for the classical three-color Ellsberg Paradax employing three different methods, choices, minimal selling prices and maximal buying prices. The resulting data reveal a high frequency of preference reversals which have not been analyzed before in choice under uncertainty. Moreover, we analyze the effect of elicitation methods on the degree of ambiguity aversion. While there is no apparent difference in the attitude towards ambiguity between selling and buying prices we observe a rather distinct pattern of behavior for choices: Compared to choices, eliciting preferences by pricing tasks decreases the number of subjects being ambiguity averse in both tasks and increases the number of subjects being ambiguity neutral or prone. We argue that this difference between pricing and choice supports the hypothesis of comparative ignorance.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by AccessEcon in its journal Economics Bulletin.
Volume (Year): 29 (2009)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Contact details of provider:
Ellsberg Paradox; ambiguity aversion; preference reversal; comparative ignorance;
Other versions of this item:
- Maffioletti, Anna & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2001. "The Effect of Elicitation Methods on Ambiguity Aversion: An Experimental Investigation," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 01-44, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim & Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
- C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
- D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Hogarth, Robin M & Kunreuther, Howard, 1989. " Risk, Ambiguity, and Insurance," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 5-35, April.
- Tversky, Amos & Slovic, Paul & Kahneman, Daniel, 1990. "The Causes of Preference Reversal," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 204-17, March.
- Fox, Craig R & Tversky, Amos, 1995. "Ambiguity Aversion and Comparative Ignorance," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 110(3), pages 585-603, August.
- Camerer, Colin & Kunreuther, Howard, 1989. " Experimental Markets for Insurance," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 265-99, September.
- Ulrich Schmidt & John D. Hey, 2004. "Are Preference Reversals Errors? An Experimental Investigation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 207-218, December.
- Jonathan E. Alevy, 2011. "Ambiguity in Individual Choice and Market Environments: On the Importance of Comparative Ignorance," Working Papers 2011-04, University of Alaska Anchorage, Department of Economics.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (John P. Conley).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.