IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/emetrp/v84y2016ip1903-1916.html

A Note on Comparative Ambiguity Aversion and Justifiability

Author

Listed:
  • P. Battigalli
  • S. Cerreia‐Vioglio
  • F. Maccheroni
  • M. Marinacci

Abstract

We consider a decision maker who ranks actions according to the smooth ambiguity criterion of Klibanoff, Marinacci, and Mukerji (2005). An action is justifiable if it is a best reply to some belief over probabilistic models. We show that higher ambiguity aversion expands the set of justifiable actions. A similar result holds for risk aversion. Our results follow from a generalization of the duality lemma of Wald (1949) and Pearce (1984).

Suggested Citation

  • P. Battigalli & S. Cerreia‐Vioglio & F. Maccheroni & M. Marinacci, 2016. "A Note on Comparative Ambiguity Aversion and Justifiability," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 84, pages 1903-1916, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:emetrp:v:84:y:2016:i::p:1903-1916
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/
    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. Burkhard C. Schipper, 2021. "The evolutionary stability of optimism, pessimism, and complete ignorance," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(3), pages 417-454, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Mark Whitmeyer, 2025. "Comparative Statics for the Subjective," Papers 2501.12926, arXiv.org, revised May 2025.
    4. Mark J. Schervish & Teddy Seidenfeld & Rafael B. Stern & Joseph B. Kadane, 2020. "What finite-additivity can add to decision theory," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 29(2), pages 237-263, June.
    5. Calford, Evan M., 2020. "Uncertainty aversion in game theory: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 720-734.
    6. Calford, Evan M., 2021. "Mixed strategies and preference for randomization in games with ambiguity averse agents," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    7. Battigalli, P. & Catonini, E. & Lanzani, G. & Marinacci, M., 2019. "Ambiguity attitudes and self-confirming equilibrium in sequential games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 1-29.
    8. Dominiak, Adam & Eichberger, Jürgen, 2021. "Games in context: Equilibrium under ambiguity for belief functions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 125-159.
    9. Michael Greinecker & Christoph Kuzmics, 2022. "Limit Orders and Knightian Uncertainty," Papers 2208.10804, arXiv.org.
    10. Calford, Evan M. & Chakraborty, Anujit, 2025. "Higher-order beliefs in a sequential social dilemma," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    11. Guarino, Pierfrancesco & Ziegler, Gabriel, 2022. "Optimism and pessimism in strategic interactions under ignorance," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 559-585.
    12. Henrique de Oliveira & Rohit Lamba, 2025. "Rationalizing dynamic choices," Papers 2504.05251, arXiv.org.
    13. Marilyn Pease & Mark Whitmeyer, 2023. "Safety, in Numbers," Papers 2310.17517, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    14. Kuzmics, Christoph, 2017. "Abraham Wald's complete class theorem and Knightian uncertainty," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 666-673.

    More about this item

    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:wly:emetrp:v:84:y:2016:i::p:1903-1916. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/essssea.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.