IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pri/econom/2020-53.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ambiguous Information and Dilation: An Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Denis Shishkin

    (University of California San Diego)

  • Pietro Ortoleva

    (Princeton University)

Abstract

With common models of updating under ambiguity, new information may increase the amount of relevant ambiguity: the set of priors may "dilate." We test experimentally 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. Under typical models, the set of priors should dilate, ambiguity averse agents should lower their value of bets, ambiguity seeking should increase it. Instead, we find that ambiguity averse agents do not change it, ambiguity seeking ones increase it substantially. We also test bets on ambiguous urns and find sizable reactions to ambiguous information.

Suggested Citation

  • Denis Shishkin & Pietro Ortoleva, 2021. "Ambiguous Information and Dilation: An Experiment," Working Papers 2020-53, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    • Handle: RePEc:pri:econom:2020-53
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://pietroortoleva.com/papers/Ambiguous_Information.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Roberta De Filippis & Antonio Guarino & Philippe Jehiel & Toru Kitagawa, 2016. "Updating ambiguous beliefs in a social learning experiment," CeMMAP working papers 18/16, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    3. , & ,, 2007. "Updating preferences with multiple priors," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 2(3), September.
    4. Acemoglu,Daron & Arellano,Manuel & Dekel,Eddie (ed.), 2013. "Advances in Economics and Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107016064.
    5. 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.
    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. Acemoglu,Daron & Arellano,Manuel & Dekel,Eddie (ed.), 2013. "Advances in Economics and Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107638105.
    8. 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.
    9. Acemoglu,Daron & Arellano,Manuel & Dekel,Eddie (ed.), 2013. "Advances in Economics and Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107016057.
    10. Acemoglu,Daron & Arellano,Manuel & Dekel,Eddie (ed.), 2013. "Advances in Economics and Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107674165.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    14. Subir Bose & Ludovic Renou, 2014. "Mechanism Design With Ambiguous Communication Devices," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(5), pages 1853-1872, September.
    15. Chen, Daniel L. & Schonger, Martin & Wickens, Chris, 2016. "oTree—An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 88-97.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Beauchêne, Dorian & Li, Jian & Li, Ming, 2019. "Ambiguous persuasion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 312-365.
    20. Mohammed Abdellaoui & John D. Hey (ed.), 2008. "Advances in Decision Making Under Risk and Uncertainty," Theory and Decision Library C, Springer, number 978-3-540-68437-4, March.
    21. Pahlke, Marieke, 2019. "A Note on Dynamic Consistency in Ambiguous Persuasion," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 611, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    22. Robin Cubitt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 1998. "On the Validity of the Random Lottery Incentive System," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(2), pages 115-131, September.
    23. Acemoglu,Daron & Arellano,Manuel & Dekel,Eddie (ed.), 2013. "Advances in Economics and Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107627314.
    24. Acemoglu,Daron & Arellano,Manuel & Dekel,Eddie (ed.), 2013. "Advances in Economics and Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107016040.
    25. Yoram Halevy, 2007. "Ellsberg Revisited: An Experimental Study," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(2), pages 503-536, March.
    26. Han Bleichrodt & Jurgen Eichberger & Simon Grant & David Kelsey & Chen Li, 2018. "A Test of Dynamic Consistency and Consequentialism in the Presence of Ambiguity," Discussion Papers 1803, University of Exeter, Department of Economics.
    27. Rui Tang, 2020. "A Theory of Updating Ambiguous Information," Papers 2012.13650, arXiv.org.
    28. 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.
    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. Shishkin, Denis & Ortoleva, Pietro, 2023. "Ambiguous information and dilation: An experiment," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    2. Robin Cubitt & Gijs Kuilen & Sujoy Mukerji, 2018. "The strength of sensitivity to ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 275-302, October.
    3. Florian H. Schneider & Martin Schonger, 2019. "An Experimental Test of the Anscombe–Aumann Monotonicity Axiom," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(4), pages 1667-1677, April.
    4. Beauchêne, Dorian & Li, Jian & Li, Ming, 2019. "Ambiguous persuasion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 312-365.
    5. Robin Cubitt & Gijs van de Kuilen & Sujoy Mukerji, 2020. "Discriminating Between Models of Ambiguity Attitude: a Qualitative Test," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(2), pages 708-749.
    6. Takashi Ui, 2021. "Strategic Ambiguity in Global Games," Working Papers on Central Bank Communication 032, University of Tokyo, Graduate School of Economics.
    7. Kellner, Christian & Le Quement, Mark T., 2018. "Endogenous ambiguity in cheap talk," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 1-17.
    8. 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).
    9. Ilke Aydogan & Loic Berger & Valentina Bosetti & Ning Liu, 2018. "Three layers of uncertainty: an experiment," Working Papers 623, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    10. Massimiliano Amarante & Mario Ghossoub, 2016. "Optimal Insurance for a Minimal Expected Retention: The Case of an Ambiguity-Seeking Insurer," Risks, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-27, March.
    11. Jaromír Kovářík & Dan Levin & Tao Wang, 2016. "Ellsberg paradox: Ambiguity and complexity aversions compared," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 47-64, February.
    12. Craig S. Webb, 2017. "Purely subjective variational preferences," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 64(1), pages 121-137, June.
    13. Karni, Edi & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2015. "Ambiguity and Nonexpected Utility," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    14. L. A. Franzoni, 2016. "Optimal liability design under risk and ambiguity," Working Papers wp1048, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    15. Loïc Berger & Louis Eeckhoudt, 2021. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Value of Diversification," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1639-1647, March.
    16. Han Bleichrodt & Christophe Courbage & Béatrice Rey, 2019. "The value of a statistical life under changes in ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 1-15, February.
    17. Loïc Berger & Massimo Marinacci, 2020. "Model Uncertainty in Climate Change Economics: A Review and Proposed Framework for Future Research," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(3), pages 475-501, November.
    18. Minardi, Stefania & Savochkin, Andrei, 2019. "Subjective contingencies and limited Bayesian updating," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 1-45.
    19. Eisei Ohtaki & Hiroyuki Ozaki, 2015. "Monetary equilibria and Knightian uncertainty," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 59(3), pages 435-459, August.
    20. Eisei Ohtaki, 2016. "Optimality of the Friedman rule under ambiguity," Working Papers e103, Tokyo Center for Economic Research.

    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

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:pri:econom:2020-53. 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: Bobray Bordelon (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://economics.princeton.edu/working-papers/ .

    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.