IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/cauman/285.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Testing choquet expected utility

Author

Listed:
  • Mangelsdorff, Lukas
  • Weber, Martin

Abstract

Many theories have been developed to model decision behavior under ambiguity. In this paper we empirically investigate theories which are based on non-additive probabilities, i.e. Choquet expected utility (CEU) theories. We first replicated Ellsberg-paradox behavior. Then we elicited the individual non-additive probabilities, the so called capacities. Those capacities did not have all properties theoretically required. Finally we found that CEU is not really superior to EU in predicting the participants' decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Mangelsdorff, Lukas & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Testing choquet expected utility," Manuskripte aus den Instituten für Betriebswirtschaftslehre der Universität Kiel 285, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Institut für Betriebswirtschaftslehre.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:cauman:285
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/161412/1/manuskript_285.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Alex Voorhoeve & Ken Binmore & Arnaldur Stefansson & Lisa Stewart, 2016. "Ambiguity attitudes, framing, and consistency," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(3), pages 313-337, September.
    2. Tsang, Ming, 2020. "Estimating uncertainty aversion using the source method in stylized tasks with varying degrees of uncertainty," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    3. Irma Machielse & Danielle Timmermans & Peter Wakker, 2007. "The effects of statistical information on risk ambiguity attitudes, and on rational insurance decisions," Natural Field Experiments 00338, The Field Experiments Website.
    4. Tsang, Ming, 2022. "Risk perception in an endogenous information environment," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(4), pages 355-372.
    5. Laure Cabantous & Denis Hilton, 2006. "De l'aversion à l'ambiguïté aux attitudes face à l'ambiguïté. Les apports d'une perspective psychologique en économie," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 57(2), pages 259-280.
    6. Voorhoeve, Alex & Binmore, Ken G & Stefansson, Arnaldur & Stewart, Lisa, 2016. "Ambiguity attitudes, framing, and consistency," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 65577, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Budescu, David V. & Kuhn, Kristine M. & Kramer, Karen M. & Johnson, Timothy R., 2002. "Modeling certainty equivalents for imprecise gambles," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 748-768, July.
    8. Michael Kilka & Martin Weber, 2001. "What Determines the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function Under Uncertainty?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(12), pages 1712-1726, December.
    9. Robert Chambers & Tigran Melkonyan, 2008. "Eliciting beliefs," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 65(4), pages 271-284, December.
    10. Gijs van de Kuilen & Peter P. Wakker, 2011. "The Midweight Method to Measure Attitudes Toward Risk and Ambiguity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(3), pages 582-598, March.
    11. Weber, Martin & Keppe, Hans-Jurgen & Meyer-Delius, Gabriela, 2000. "The impact of endowment framing on market prices -- an experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 159-176, February.
    12. Lahno, Amrei M., 2014. "Social anchor effects in decision-making under ambiguity," Discussion Papers in Economics 20960, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    13. Borup, Daniel & Schütte, Erik Christian Montes, 2022. "Asset pricing with data revisions," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 59(PB).
    14. Kozhan, Roman & Salmon, Mark, 2009. "Uncertainty aversion in a heterogeneous agent model of foreign exchange rate formation," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 1106-1122, May.
    15. Brenner, Menachem & Izhakian, Yehuda, 2018. "Asset pricing and ambiguity: Empirical evidence⁎," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(3), pages 503-531.
    16. Peter P. Wakker & Daniëlle R. M. Timmermans & Irma Machielse, 2007. "The Effects of Statistical Information on Risk and Ambiguity Attitudes, and on Rational Insurance Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(11), pages 1770-1784, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Ellsberg paradox; ambiguity; Choquet expected utility; non-additive probabilities; experimental economics;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:zbw:cauman:285. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ibkiede.html .

    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.