IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jetheo/v208y2023ics0022053123000066.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ambiguous information and dilation: An experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Shishkin, Denis
  • Ortoleva, Pietro

Abstract

With standard models of updating under ambiguity, new information may increase the amount of relevant ambiguity: the set of beliefs may ‘dilate.’ We experimentally test one sharp case: agents bet on a risky urn and get information that is truthful or not based on the draw from an Ellsberg urn. With common models, the set of beliefs dilates, and the value of bets decreases for ambiguity-averse agents and increases for ambiguity-seeking ones. Instead, we find that the value of bets does not change for ambiguity-averse individuals, while it increases substantially for ambiguity-seeking ones. We also test bets on ambiguous urns, in which case we find sizable reactions to ambiguous information.

Suggested Citation

  • Shishkin, Denis & Ortoleva, Pietro, 2023. "Ambiguous information and dilation: An experiment," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jetheo:v:208:y:2023:i:c:s0022053123000066
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jet.2023.105610
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022053123000066
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jet.2023.105610?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eyal Ert & Stefan Trautmann, 2014. "Sampling experience reverses preferences for ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 31-42, August.
    2. Klibanoff, Peter & Marinacci, Massimo & Mukerji, Sujoy, 2009. "Recursive smooth ambiguity preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(3), pages 930-976, May.
    3. Bleichrodt, Han & Eichberger, Jürgen & Grant, Simon & Kelsey, David & Li, Chen, 2021. "Testing dynamic consistency and consequentialism under ambiguity," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    4. Larry G. Epstein & Martin Schneider, 2008. "Ambiguity, Information Quality, and Asset Pricing," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 63(1), pages 197-228, February.
    5. Gilboa Itzhak & Schmeidler David, 1993. "Updating Ambiguous Beliefs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 33-49, February.
    6. David J. Freeman & Yoram Halevy & Terri Kneeland, 2019. "Eliciting risk preferences using choice lists," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 10(1), pages 217-237, January.
    7. De Filippis, Roberta & Guarino, Antonio & Jehiel, Philippe & Kitagawa, Toru, 2022. "Non-Bayesian updating in a social learning experiment," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    8. John Hey & Jinkwon Lee, 2005. "Do Subjects Separate (or Are They Sophisticated)?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(3), pages 233-265, September.
    9. Gul, Faruk & Pesendorfer, Wolfgang, 2021. "Evaluating ambiguous random variables from Choquet to maxmin expected utility," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    10. Subir Bose & Ludovic Renou, 2014. "Mechanism Design With Ambiguous Communication Devices," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(5), pages 1853-1872, September.
    11. Cohen, M. & Gilboa, I. & Jaffray, J.Y. & Schmeidler, D., 2000. "An experimental study of updating ambiguous beliefs," Risk, Decision and Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 123-133, June.
    12. Beauchêne, Dorian & Li, Jian & Li, Ming, 2019. "Ambiguous persuasion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 312-365.
    13. Larry G. Epstein & Martin Schneider, 2007. "Learning Under Ambiguity," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 74(4), pages 1275-1303.
    14. Yoram Halevy, 2007. "Ellsberg Revisited: An Experimental Study," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(2), pages 503-536, March.
    15. Peter Klibanoff & Massimo Marinacci & Sujoy Mukerji, 2005. "A Smooth Model of Decision Making under Ambiguity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(6), pages 1849-1892, November.
    16. Kurata, Hiroshi & Izawa, Hiroshi & Okamura, Makoto, 2009. "Non-expected utility maximizers behave as if expected utility maximizers: An experimental test," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 622-629, August.
    17. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    18. Yaron Azrieli & Christopher P. Chambers & Paul J. Healy, 2018. "Incentives in Experiments: A Theoretical Analysis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(4), pages 1472-1503.
    19. , & ,, 2007. "Updating preferences with multiple priors," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 2(3), September.
    20. Cesaltina Pacheco Pires, 2002. "A Rule For Updating Ambiguous Beliefs," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 137-152, September.
    21. Othon M. Moreno & Yaroslav Rosokha, 2016. "Learning under compound risk vs. learning under ambiguity – an experiment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 137-162, December.
    22. Xiaoyu Cheng, 2020. "Ambiguous Persuasion: An Ex-Ante Formulation," Papers 2010.05376, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    23. Beattie, Jane & Loomes, Graham, 1997. "The Impact of Incentives upon Risky Choice Experiments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 155-168, March.
    24. Bade, Sophie, 2015. "Randomization devices and the elicitation of ambiguity-averse preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PA), pages 221-235.
    25. repec:spr:thdchp:978-3-540-68437-4_1 is not listed on IDEAS
    26. Hanany Eran & Klibanoff Peter, 2009. "Updating Ambiguity Averse Preferences," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-53, November.
    27. Kellner, Christian & Le Quement, Mark T. & Riener, Gerhard, 2022. "Reacting to ambiguous messages: An experimental analysis," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 360-378.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Denis Shishkin & Pietro Ortoleva, 2021. "Ambiguous Information and Dilation: An Experiment," Working Papers 2020-53, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    2. Kathleen Ngangoué, M., 2021. "Learning under ambiguity: An experiment in gradual information processing," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    3. Larry G. Epstein & Yoram Halevy, 2019. "Hard-to-Interpret Signals," Working Papers tecipa-634, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    4. Cheng, Xiaoyu, 2022. "Relative Maximum Likelihood updating of ambiguous beliefs," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    5. Georgalos, Konstantinos, 2021. "Dynamic decision making under ambiguity: An experimental investigation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 28-46.
    6. Konstantinos Georgalos, 2019. "An experimental test of the predictive power of dynamic ambiguity models," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(1), pages 51-83, August.
    7. Xiaoyu Cheng, 2019. "Relative Maximum Likelihood Updating of Ambiguous Beliefs," Papers 1911.02678, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2021.
    8. James R. Bland & Yaroslav Rosokha, 2021. "Learning under uncertainty with multiple priors: experimental investigation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 62(2), pages 157-176, April.
    9. Alexander Zimper, 2011. "Do Bayesians Learn Their Way Out of Ambiguity?," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 269-285, December.
    10. Massimo Guidolin & Francesca Rinaldi, 2013. "Ambiguity in asset pricing and portfolio choice: a review of the literature," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(2), pages 183-217, February.
    11. 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.
    12. Beauchêne, Dorian & Li, Jian & Li, Ming, 2019. "Ambiguous persuasion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 312-365.
    13. Robin Cubitt & Gijs Kuilen & Sujoy Mukerji, 2018. "The strength of sensitivity to ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 275-302, October.
    14. Hill, Brian, 2022. "Updating confidence in beliefs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    15. Auster, Sarah & Kellner, Christian, 2022. "Robust bidding and revenue in descending price auctions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    16. Li, Jian, 2020. "Preferences for partial information and ambiguity," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 15(3), July.
    17. Hill, Brian, 2020. "Dynamic consistency and ambiguity: A reappraisal," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 289-310.
    18. Dominiak, Adam & Duersch, Peter & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2012. "A dynamic Ellsberg urn experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 625-638.
    19. Galanis, S. & Ioannou, C. & Kotronis, S., 2019. "Information Aggregation Under Ambiguity: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Working Papers 20/05, Department of Economics, City University London.
    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

    Keywords

    Updating; Ambiguous information; Ambiguity aversion; Ellsberg paradox; Maxmin expected utility;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D90 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - General

    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:eee:jetheo:v:208:y:2023:i:c:s0022053123000066. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622869 .

    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.