Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

A Dynamic Ellsberg Urn Experiment

Contents:

Author Info

  • Dominiak, Adam
  • Dürsch, Peter
  • Lefort, Jean-Philippe

Abstract

Two rationality arguments are used to justify the link between conditional and unconditional preferences in decision theory: dynamic consistency and consequentialism. Dynamic consistency requires that ex ante contingent choices are respected by updated preferences. Consequentialism states that only those outcomes which are still possible can matter for updated preferences. We test the descriptive validity of these rationality arguments with a dynamic version of Ellsberg's three color experiment and find that subjects act more often in line with consequentialism than with dynamic consistency.

Download Info

If 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.
File URL: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn=urn:nbn:de:bsz:16-heidok-98288
File Function: Frontdoor page on HeiDOK
Download Restriction: no

File URL: http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/9828/1/dp487.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 0487.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: 21 Sep 2009
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:awi:wpaper:0487

Note: This paper is part of http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/view/schriftenreihen/sr-3.html
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Grabengasse 14, D-69117 Heidelberg
Phone: +49-6221-54 2905
Fax: +49-6221-54 2914
Email:
Web page: http://www.awi.uni-heidelberg.de/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: Non expected utility preferences; ambiguity; updating; dynamic consistency; consequentialism;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
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.:
as in new window
  1. Hammond, Peter J, 1989. "Consistent Plans, Consequentialism, and Expected Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(6), pages 1445-49, November.
  2. Massimiliano Amarante & Emel Filiz, 2004. "Ambiguous events and Maxmin Expected Utility," Discussion Papers 0405-09, Columbia University, Department of Economics.
  3. 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(02), pages 123-133, June.
  4. Siniscalchi, Marciano, 2011. "Dynamic choice under ambiguity," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 6(3), September.
  5. Larry G. Epstein & Martin Schneider, 2001. "Recursive Multiple-Priors," RCER Working Papers 485, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
  6. Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & Aldo Rustichini, 2006. "Ambiguity Aversion, Robustness, and the Variational Representation of Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(6), pages 1447-1498, November.
  7. David Schmeidler, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7662, David K. Levine.
  8. Al-Najjar, Nabil I. & Weinstein, Jonathan, 2009. "The Ambiguity Aversion Literature: A Critical Assessment," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(03), pages 249-284, November.
  9. Volij, Oscar, 1994. "Dynamic consistency, consequentialism and reduction of compound lotteries," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 121-129, October.
  10. Al-Najjar, Nabil I. & Weinstein, Jonathan, 2009. "Rejoinder: The “Ambiguity Aversion Literature: A Critical Assessment”," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(03), pages 357-369, November.
  11. Eichberger, J. & Kelsey, D., 1993. "Uncertainty Aversion and Dynamic Consistency," Discussion Papers 93-08, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
  12. Nehring, Klaus, 1999. "Capacities and probabilistic beliefs: a precarious coexistence," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 197-213, September.
  13. Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon & Kelsey, David, 2005. "CEU preferences and dynamic consistency," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 143-151, March.
  14. Cesaltina Pacheco Pires, 2002. "A Rule For Updating Ambiguous Beliefs," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 137-152, September.
  15. Chen, Yan & Katuscak, Peter & Ozdenoren, Emre, 2007. "Sealed bid auctions with ambiguity: Theory and experiments," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 513-535, September.
  16. Sarin, Rakesh & Wakker, Peter P, 1998. "Dynamic Choice and NonExpected Utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 87-119, November.
  17. Klibanoff, Peter & Hanany, Eran, 2007. "Updating preferences with multiple priors," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 2(3), September.
  18. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
  19. Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon & Kelsey, David, 2007. "Updating Choquet beliefs," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(7-8), pages 888-899, September.
  20. Itzhak Gilboa & David Schmeidler, 1991. "Updating Ambiguous Beliefs," Discussion Papers 924, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
  21. Marciano Siniscalchi, 2009. "Vector Expected Utility and Attitudes Toward Variation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(3), pages 801-855, 05.
  22. Lehrer, Ehud, 2005. "Updating non-additive probabilities-- a geometric approach," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 42-57, January.
  23. Volij, Oscar, 1994. "Dynamic Consistency, Consequentialism and The Reduction of Compound Lotteries," Staff General Research Papers 10569, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  24. Larry G. Epstein & Jiankang Zhang, 1999. "Subjective Probabilities on Subjectively Unambiguous Events," Carleton Economic Papers 99-18, Carleton University, Department of Economics.
  25. Cubitt, Robin P & Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1998. "Dynamic Choice and the Common Ratio Effect: An Experimental Investigation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(450), pages 1362-80, September.
  26. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
  27. Ghirardato, Paolo & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2004. "Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 133-173, October.
  28. Machina,Mark & Schmeidler,David, 1991. "A more robust definition of subjective probability," Discussion Paper Serie A 365, University of Bonn, Germany.
  29. 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.
  30. Schmeidler, D. & Karni, E., 1990. "A Temporal Dynamic Consistency And Expected Utility Theory," Papers 39-90, Tel Aviv.
  31. Greiner, Ben, 2004. "An Online Recruitment System for Economic Experiments," MPRA Paper 13513, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  32. Machina, Mark J, 1989. "Dynamic Consistency and Non-expected Utility Models of Choice under Uncertainty," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 27(4), pages 1622-68, December.
  33. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. " Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-70, October.
  34. Paolo Ghirardato, 2002. "Revisiting Savage in a conditional world," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 83-92.
  35. Siniscalchi, Marciano, 2009. "Two Out Of Three Ain'T Bad: A Comment On “The Ambiguity Aversion Literature: A Critical Assessment”," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(03), pages 335-356, November.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

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

Cited by:
  1. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Umut Keskin & Olivier L'Haridon & Author-Name: Chen Li, 2013. "Learning under ambiguity: An experiment using initial public offerings on a stock market," Economics Working Paper Archive (University of Rennes 1 & University of Caen) 201331, Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM), University of Rennes 1, University of Caen and CNRS.
  2. David Cooper & David Johnson, 2013. "Ambiguity in Performance Pay: An Online Experiment," Working Papers 2013-27, Department of Economics, University of Calgary, revised 14 Nov 2013.
  3. Oechssler, Jörg & Roomets, Alex, 2014. "A Test of Mechanical Ambiguity," Working Papers 0555, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
  4. Amit Kothiyal & Vitalie Spinu & Peter Wakker, 2014. "An experimental test of prospect theory for predicting choice under ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 1-17, February.
  5. Carvalho, M., 2012. "Static vs Dynamic Auctions with Ambiguity Averse Bidders," Discussion Paper 2012-022, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
  6. Eichberger, Jürgen & Oechssler, Jörg & Schnedler, Wendelin, 2012. "How do people cope with an ambiguous situation when it becomes even more ambiguous?," Working Papers 0528, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
  7. Vadym Lepetyuk & Christian A. Stoltenberg, 2013. "Reconciling consumption inequality with income inequality," Working Papers 705, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
  8. Vadym Lepetyuk & Christian A. Stoltenberg, 2013. "Reconciling Consumption Inequality with Income Inequality," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 13-124/VI, Tinbergen Institute.
  9. Paul Viefers, 2012. "Should I Stay or Should I Go?: A Laboratory Analysis of Investment Opportunities under Ambiguity," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1228, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
  10. Adam Dominiak & Jean-Philippe Lefort, 2011. "Unambiguous events and dynamic Choquet preferences," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 401-425, April.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:awi:wpaper:0487. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Gabi Rauscher).

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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