On the Smooth Ambiguity Model: A Reply
We find that Epstein (2010)'s Ellsberg-style thought experiments pose, contrary to his claims, no paradox or difficulty for the smooth ambiguity model of decision making under uncertainty developed by Klibanoff, Marinacci and Mukerji (2005). Not only are the thought experiments naturally handled by the smooth ambiguity model, but our reanalysis shows that they highlight some of its strengths compared to models such as the maxmin expected utility model (Gilboa and Schmeidler (1989)). In particular, these examples pose no challenge to the model's foundations, interpretation of the model as affording a separation of ambiguity and ambiguity attitude or the potential for calibrating ambiguity attitude in the model.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
Volume (Year): 80 (2012)
Issue (Month): 3 (May)
|Contact details of provider:|| Phone: 1 212 998 3820|
Fax: 1 212 995 4487
Web page: http://www.econometricsociety.org/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:|| Web: https://www.econometricsociety.org/publications/econometrica/access/ordering-back-issues Email: |
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- 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.
- Epstein, Larry G. & Schneider, Martin, 2003. "IID: independently and indistinguishably distributed," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 32-50, November.
- Larry Epstein & Martin Schneider, 2002. "IID: Independently and Indistinguishably Distributed," RCER Working Papers 496, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
- William Neilson, 2010. "A simplified axiomatic approach to ambiguity aversion," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 113-124, October.
- Marciano Siniscalchi, 2009. "Vector Expected Utility and Attitudes Toward Variation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(3), pages 801-855, May.
- Marciano Siniscalchi, 2007. "Vector Expected Utility and Attitudes toward Variation," Discussion Papers 1455, 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.
- Segal, Uzi & Spivak, Avia, 1990. "First order versus second order risk aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 111-125, June.
- Uzi Segal & Avia Spivak, 1988. "First Order Versus Second Order Risk Aversion," UCLA Economics Working Papers 540, UCLA Department of Economics.
- Amarante, Massimiliano, 2009. "Foundations of neo-Bayesian statistics," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(5), pages 2146-2173, September.
- Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.