A Dynamic Ellsberg Urn Experiment
AbstractTwo 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 up dated preferences. Consequentialism states that only those outcomes which are still possible can matter for up dated preferences. We test the descriptive validity of these rationality arguments with a dynamic version of Ellsberg's three color experiment and that subjects act more often in line with consequentialism than with dynamic consistency.
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 Université Paris-Dauphine in its series Open Access publications from Université Paris-Dauphine with number urn:hdl:123456789/7357.
Date of creation: Jan 2012
Date of revision:
Publication status: Published in Games and Economic Behavior (2012-01) v., p.-
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.dauphine.fr/en/welcome.html
experiment; consequentialism; dynamic consistency; updating; ambiguity; Non expected utility preferences;
Other versions of this item:
- Dominiak, Adam & Dürsch, Peter & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2009. "A Dynamic Ellsberg Urn Experiment," Working Papers 0487, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
- Dominiak, Adam & Dürsch, Peter & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2012. "A dynamic Ellsberg urn experiment," Open Access publications from UniversitÃ© Paris-Dauphine urn:hdl:123456789/7333, Université Paris-Dauphine.
- 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
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2012-04-03 (All new papers)
- NEP-CBE-2012-04-03 (Cognitive & Behavioural Economics)
- NEP-EVO-2012-04-03 (Evolutionary Economics)
- NEP-EXP-2012-04-03 (Experimental Economics)
- NEP-HPE-2012-04-03 (History & Philosophy of Economics)
- NEP-UPT-2012-04-03 (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.:
- Gilboa Itzhak & Schmeidler David, 1993.
"Updating Ambiguous Beliefs,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 33-49, February.
- Sujoy Mukerji & Peter Klibanoff, 2002.
"A Smooth Model of Decision,Making Under Ambiguity,"
Economics Series Working Papers
113, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
- 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.
- Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & Aldo Rustichini, 2006.
"Ambiguity Aversion, Robustness, and the Variational Representation of Preferences,"
Econometric Society, vol. 74(6), pages 1447-1498, November.
- Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & Aldo Rustichini, 2004. "Ambiguity Aversion, Robustness, and the Variational Representation of Preferences," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 12, Collegio Carlo Alberto, revised 2006.
- Eichberger, J. & Kelsey, D., 1993.
"Uncertainty Aversion and Dynamic Consistency,"
93-08, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
- Klibanoff, Peter & Hanany, Eran, 2007. "Updating preferences with multiple priors," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 2(3), September.
- Machina,Mark & Schmeidler,David, 1991.
"A more robust definition of subjective probability,"
Discussion Paper Serie A
365, University of Bonn, Germany.
- Machina, Mark J & Schmeidler, David, 1992. "A More Robust Definition of Subjective Probability," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(4), pages 745-80, July.
- Mark J. Machina & David Schmeidler, 1990. "A More Robust Definition of Subjective Probability," Discussion Paper Serie A 306, University of Bonn, Germany.
- Epstein, Larry G. & Schneider, Martin, 2003.
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 1-31, November.
- Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
- Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon & Kelsey, David, 2005.
"CEU preferences and dynamic consistency,"
Mathematical Social Sciences,
Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 143-151, March.
- Schmeidler, David, 1989.
"Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity,"
Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-87, May.
- David Schmeidler, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7662, David K. Levine.
- 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.
- Greiner, Ben, 2004. "An Online Recruitment System for Economic Experiments," MPRA Paper 13513, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Paolo Ghirardato, 2002. "Revisiting Savage in a conditional world," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 83-92.
- Cesaltina Pacheco Pires, 2002. "A Rule For Updating Ambiguous Beliefs," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 137-152, September.
- Ghirardato, Paolo & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2004. "Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 133-173, October.
- Sarin, Rakesh & Wakker, Peter P, 1998. "Dynamic Choice and NonExpected Utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 87-119, November.
- Dominiak, Adam & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2009.
"Unambiguous Events and Dynamic Choquet Preferences,"
0489, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
- Adam Dominiak & Jean-Philippe Lefort, 2011. "Unambiguous events and dynamic Choquet preferences," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 401-425, April.
- Dominiak, Adam & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2011. "Unambiguous events and dynamic Choquet preferences," Open Access publications from UniversitÃ© Paris-Dauphine urn:hdl:123456789/7323, Université Paris-Dauphine.
- 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.
- Carvalho, M., 2012. "Static vs Dynamic Auctions with Ambiguity Averse Bidders," Discussion Paper 2012-022, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- 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.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wendin-Malegdé Patrick Kaboré).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.