IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/restat/v96y2014i4p609-617.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Heterogeneity of Ambiguity Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Dale O. Stah

    (University of Texas at Austin)

Abstract

There is much interest in ambiguity-averse behavior under uncertainty, and many theories have been advanced to explain this. Empirical analyses of choices involving ambiguous options have typically used a representative agent model. We address the question of whether representative agent models are accurate approximations of reality or whether there is substantial heterogeneity in ambiguity preferences. In contrast to the representative agent model, we find that the vast majority of participants are not significantly ambiguity averse and that a significant proportion of participants are consistent with expected utility theory. This finding has important implications for the application of behavioral economics. © 2014 The President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Suggested Citation

  • Dale O. Stah, 2014. "Heterogeneity of Ambiguity Preferences," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 96(4), pages 609-617, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:tpr:restat:v:96:y:2014:i:4:p:609-617
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/REST_a_00392
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Aurélien Baillon & Yoram Halevy & Chen Li, 2022. "Experimental elicitation of ambiguity attitude using the random incentive system," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(3), pages 1002-1023, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Dale O. Stahl, 2019. "A Bayesian Method for Characterizing Population Heterogeneity," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-12, October.
    4. Alam, Jessica & Georgalos, Konstantinos & Rolls, Harrison, 2022. "Risk preferences, gender effects and Bayesian econometrics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 168-183.
    5. Bade, Sophie, 2015. "Randomization devices and the elicitation of ambiguity-averse preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PA), pages 221-235.
    6. Robin Cubitt & Gijs Kuilen & Sujoy Mukerji, 2018. "The strength of sensitivity to ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 275-302, October.
    7. Christoph Bühren & Fabian Meier & Marco Pleßner, 2023. "Ambiguity aversion: bibliometric analysis and literature review of the last 60 years," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 495-525, June.
    8. Christoph Kuzmics & Brian W. Rogers & Xiannong Zhang, 2023. "Randomization advice and ambiguity aversion," Graz Economics Papers 2023-01, University of Graz, Department of Economics.
    9. Konstantinos Georgalos & Nathan Nabil, 2023. "Heuristics Unveiled," Working Papers 400814162, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    10. Martin G. Kocher & Amrei M. Lahno & Stefan T. Trautmann, 2015. "Ambiguity Aversion is the Exception," CESifo Working Paper Series 5261, CESifo.
    11. Georgalos, Konstantinos, 2021. "Dynamic decision making under ambiguity: An experimental investigation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 28-46.
    12. Kocher, Martin G. & Lahno, Amrei Marie & Trautmann, Stefan T., 2018. "Ambiguity aversion is not universal," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 268-283.
    13. Yu Gao & Zhenxing Huang & Ning Liu & Jia Yang, 2024. "Are physicians rational under ambiguity?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 68(2), pages 183-203, April.
    14. Christoph Kuzmics & Brian W. Rogers & Xiannong Zhang, 2019. "Is Ellsberg behavior evidence of ambiguity aversion?," Graz Economics Papers 2019-07, University of Graz, Department of Economics.
    15. Oechssler, Jörg & Roomets, Alex, 2015. "A test of mechanical ambiguity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 153-162.
    16. Kocher, Martin G. & Lahno, Amrei Marie & Trautmann, Stefan T., 2015. "Ambiguity aversion is the exception," Discussion Papers in Economics 23817, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    17. Christoph Kuzmics & Brian W. Rogers & Xiannong Zhang, 2022. "An Ellsberg paradox for ambiguity aversion," Graz Economics Papers 2022-05, University of Graz, Department of Economics.
    18. Othon M. Moreno & Yaroslav Rosokha, 2016. "Learning under compound risk vs. learning under ambiguity – an experiment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 137-162, December.
    19. Enrica Carbone & Konstantinos Georgalos & Gerardo Infante, 2019. "Individual vs. group decision-making: an experiment on dynamic choice under risk and ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(1), pages 87-122, July.
    20. James R. Bland & Yaroslav Rosokha, 2021. "Learning under uncertainty with multiple priors: experimental investigation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 62(2), pages 157-176, April.
    21. Kettlewell, Nathan & Tymula, Agnieszka & Yoo, Hong Il, 2023. "The Heritability of Economic Preferences," IZA Discussion Papers 16633, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    22. Ken Binmore, 2017. "On the Foundations of Decision Theory," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 259-273, December.
    23. 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.
    24. Stephen Dimmock & Roy Kouwenberg & Olivia Mitchell & Kim Peijnenburg, 2015. "Estimating ambiguity preferences and perceptions in multiple prior models: Evidence from the field," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 219-244, December.
    25. Daniel R. Burghart & Thomas Epper & Ernst Fehr, 2020. "The uncertainty triangle – Uncovering heterogeneity in attitudes towards uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 125-156, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    heterogeneity; ambiguity; behavior; behavioral economics; representative agent model;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • P49 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Other Economic Systems - - - Other

    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:tpr:restat:v:96:y:2014:i:4:p:609-617. 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: Kelly McDougall (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://direct.mit.edu/journals .

    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.