Ellsberg Paradox and Second-order Preference Theories on Ambiguity: Some New Experimental Evidence
AbstractWe study the two-color problem by Ellsberg (1961) with the modification that the decision maker draws twice with replacement and a different color wins in each draw. The 50-50 risky urn turns out to have the highest risk conceivable among all prospects including the ambiguous one, while all feasible color distributions are mean-preserving spreads to one another. We show that the well-known second-order sophisticated theories like MEU, CEU, and REU as well as Savage’s first-order theory of SEU share the same predictions in our design, for any first-order risk attitude. Yet, we observe that substantial numbers of subjects violate the theory predictions even in this simple design.
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 University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 28531.
Date of creation: 22 Jan 2011
Date of revision:
Ellsberg paradox; Ambiguity; Second-order risk; Second-order preference theory; Experiment;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- 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-2011-02-12 (All new papers)
- NEP-EXP-2011-02-12 (Experimental Economics)
- NEP-HPE-2011-02-12 (History & Philosophy of Economics)
- NEP-NEU-2011-02-12 (Neuroeconomics)
- NEP-UPT-2011-02-12 (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.:
- Vincent Feltkamp & Yoram Halevy, 2000.
"A Bayesian Approach to Uncertainty Aversion,"
Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers
1125, Econometric Society.
- Feltkamp, Vincent & Halevy, Yoram, 2004. "A Bayesian Approach to Uncertainty Aversion," Microeconomics.ca working papers halevy-04-02-13-07-48-37, Vancouver School of Economics, revised 25 Feb 2014.
- Vincent Feltkamp & Yoram Halevy, 1999. "- A Bayesian Approach To Uncertainty Aversion," Working Papers. Serie AD 1999-14, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
- Yoram Halevy & Vincent Feltkamp, . "A Bayesian Approach to Uncentainty Aversion," Penn CARESS Working Papers f17f3e2c6ad93e4b53fd58fc9, Penn Economics Department.
- Yoram Halevy & Vincent Feltkamp, . "A Bayesian Approach to Uncentainty Aversion," CARESS Working Papres 99-03, University of Pennsylvania Center for Analytic Research and Economics in the Social Sciences.
- 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.
- Heath, Chip & Tversky, Amos, 1991. " Preference and Belief: Ambiguity and Competence in Choice under Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 5-28, January.
- Uzi Segal, 1985.
"The Ellsberg Paradox and Risk Aversion: An Anticipated Utility Approach,"
UCLA Economics Working Papers
362, UCLA Department of Economics.
- Segal, Uzi, 1987. "The Ellsberg Paradox and Risk Aversion: An Anticipated Utility Approach," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 28(1), pages 175-202, February.
- Casadesus-Masanell, Ramon & Klibanoff, Peter & Ozdenoren, Emre, 2000. "Maxmin Expected Utility over Savage Acts with a Set of Priors," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 92(1), pages 35-65, May.
- 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.
- Uzi Segal, 1989.
"Two-Stage Lotteries Without the Reduction Axiom,"
UCLA Economics Working Papers
552, UCLA Department of Economics.
- Yoram Halevy, 2007.
"Ellsberg Revisited: An Experimental Study,"
Econometric Society, vol. 75(2), pages 503-536, 03.
- David Schmeidler, 1989.
"Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
7662, David K. Levine.
- Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-87, May.
- Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
- Jack Stecher & Timothy Shields & John Dickhaut (deceased), 2011.
"Generating Ambiguity in the Laboratory,"
INFORMS, vol. 57(4), pages 705-712, April.
- Kyoungwon Seo, 2009. "Ambiguity and Second-Order Belief," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(5), pages 1575-1605, 09.
- Sujoy Mukerji & Peter Klibanoff, 2002.
"A Smooth Model of Decision,Making Under Ambiguity,"
Economics Series Working Papers
113, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
- Ramon Casadesus-Masanell & Peter Klibanoff & Emre Ozdenoren, 1998. "Maximum Expected Utility over Savage Acts with a Set of Priors," Discussion Papers 1218, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Robert F. Nau, 2006. "Uncertainty Aversion with Second-Order Utilities and Probabilities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(1), pages 136-145, January.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.