Assessing Multiple Prior Models of Behaviour under Ambiguity
AbstractThe recent spate of theoretical models of behaviour under ambiguity can be partitioned into two sets: those involving multiple priors (in which the probabilities of the various events are not known but probabilities can be attached to the various possible values for the probabilities) and those not involving multiple priors. This paper concentrates on the first set and provides an experimental investigation into recently proposed theories. Using an appropriate experimental interface, in which the probabilities on the various possibilities are explicitly stated, we examine the fitted and predictive power of the various theories. We first estimate subject-by-subject, and then we estimate and predict using a mixture model over the contending theories. The individual estimates suggest that 24% of our 149 subjects have behaviour consistent with Expected Utility, 56% with the Smooth Model (of Klibanoff et al, 2005), 11% with Rank Dependent Expected Utility and 9% with the Alpha Model (of Ghirardato et al 2004); these figures are close to the mixing proportions obtained from the mixture estimates. If we classify our subjects through the posterior probabilities (given all the evidence) of each of them being of the various types: using the estimates we get 25%, 50%, 20% and 5% (for EU, Smooth, Rank Dependent and Alpha); while using the predictions 22%, 53%, 22% and 3%. Interestingly the Smooth model seems to fare the best.
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 InfoPaper provided by Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Max-Planck-Institute of Economics in its series Jena Economic Research Papers with number 2011-068.
Date of creation: 2011
Date of revision:
Alpha Model; Ambiguity; Expected Utility; Mixture Models; Rank Dependent Expected Utility; Smooth Model;
Other versions of this item:
- Anna Conte & John Hey, 2013. "Assessing multiple prior models of behaviour under ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 113-132, April.
- Anna Conte & John D. Hey, 2012. "Assessing Multiple Prior Models of Behaviour under Ambiguity," Discussion Papers 12/01, Department of Economics, University of York.
- D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
- C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
- C23 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Longitudinal Data; Spatial Time Series
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2012-03-21 (All new papers)
- NEP-CBE-2012-03-21 (Cognitive & Behavioural Economics)
- NEP-EXP-2012-03-21 (Experimental Economics)
- NEP-FOR-2012-03-21 (Forecasting)
- NEP-UPT-2012-03-21 (Utility Models & Prospect Theory)
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.:
- Conte, Anna & Hey, John D. & Moffatt, Peter G., 2011.
"Mixture models of choice under risk,"
Journal of Econometrics,
Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 79-88, May.
- Ghirardato, Paolo & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2004. "Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 133-173, October.
- John Hey & Gianna Lotito & Anna Maffioletti, 2010.
"The descriptive and predictive adequacy of theories of decision making under uncertainty/ambiguity,"
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,
Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 81-111, October.
- John D Hey & Gianna Lotito & Anna Maffioletti, 2008. "The Descriptive and Predictive Adequacy of Theories of Decision Making Under Uncertainty/Ambiguity," Discussion Papers 08/04, Department of Economics, University of York.
- Ben Greiner, 2004. "The Online Recruitment System ORSEE 2.0 - A Guide for the Organization of Experiments in Economics," Working Paper Series in Economics 10, University of Cologne, Department of Economics.
- Yoram Halevy, 2007.
"Ellsberg Revisited: An Experimental Study,"
Econometric Society, vol. 75(2), pages 503-536, 03.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7656, David K. Levine.
- Mohammed Abdellaoui & Aurelien Baillon & Laetitia Placido & Peter P. Wakker, 2011. "The Rich Domain of Uncertainty: Source Functions and Their Experimental Implementation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 695-723, April.
- Peter Klibanoff & Massimo Marinacci & Sujoy Mukerji, 2002.
"A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity,"
ICER Working Papers - Applied Mathematics Series
11-2003, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research, revised Apr 2003.
- David Ahn & Syngjoo Choi & Douglas Gale & Shachar Kariv, 2008. "Estimating Ambiguity Aversion in a Portfolio Choice Experiment," Levine's Working Paper Archive 122247000000001989, David K. Levine.
- Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
- Attanasi, Giuseppe & Gollier, Christian & Montesano, Aldo & Pace, Noémie, 2012.
"Eliciting ambiguity aversion in unknown and in compound lotteries: A KMM experimental approach,"
TSE Working Papers
12-338, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
- Attanasi, Giuseppe & Gollier, Christian & Montesano, Aldo & Pace, Noémie, 2012. "Eliciting ambiguity aversion in unknown and in compound lotteries: A KMM experimental approach," IDEI Working Papers 744, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
- Noemi Pace & Giuseppe Attanasi & Christian Gollier & Aldo Montesano, 2012. "Eliciting ambiguity aversion in unknown and in compound lotteries: A KMM experimental approach," Working Papers 2012_23, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
- Attanasi, Giuseppe & Gollier, Christian & Montesano, Aldo & Pace, NoÃ©mie, 2012. "Eliciting ambiguity aversion in unknown and in compound lotteries: A KMM experimental approach," LERNA Working Papers 12.21.378, LERNA, University of Toulouse.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Markus Pasche).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.