IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ala/wpaper/2011-04.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ambiguity in Individual Choice and Market Environments: On the Importance of Comparative Ignorance

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan E. Alevy

    () (Department of Economics, University of Alaska Anchorage)

Abstract

After Ellsberg’s thought experiments brought focus to the relevance of missing information for choice, extensive efforts have been made to understand ambiguity theoretically and empirically (Ellsberg 1961). Fox and Tversky (1995) make an important contribution to understanding behavioral responses to ambiguity. In an individual choice setting they demonstrate that an aversion to ambiguous lotteries arises only when a comparison to unambiguous lotteries is available. The current study advances this literature by exploring the importance of Fox and Tversky’s finding for market outcomes and finds support for their Comparative Ignorance Hypothesis in the market setting.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan E. Alevy, 2011. "Ambiguity in Individual Choice and Market Environments: On the Importance of Comparative Ignorance," Working Papers 2011-04, University of Alaska Anchorage, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ala:wpaper:2011-04
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.econpapers.uaa.alaska.edu/RePEC/ala/wpaper/ALA201104.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Bruner, 2009. "Changing the probability versus changing the reward," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(4), pages 367-385, December.
    2. Chow, Clare Chua & Sarin, Rakesh K, 2001. "Comparative Ignorance and the Ellsberg Paradox," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 129-139, March.
    3. Peter Bossaerts & Paolo Ghirardato & Serena Guarnaschelli & William R. Zame, 2010. "Ambiguity in Asset Markets: Theory and Experiment," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 23(4), pages 1325-1359, April.
    4. John A. List, 2002. "Preference Reversals of a Different Kind: The "More Is Less" Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1636-1643, December.
    5. Eric J. Johnson & David A. Schkade, 1989. "Bias in Utility Assessments: Further Evidence and Explanations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 406-424, April.
    6. Plott, Charles R & Sunder, Shyam, 1988. "Rational Expectations and the Aggregation of Diverse Information in Laboratory Security Markets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(5), pages 1085-1118, September.
    7. Sunder, Shyam, 1992. "Market for Information: Experimental Evidence," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(3), pages 667-695, May.
    8. Wakker,Peter P., 2010. "Prospect Theory," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521765015, December.
    9. Anna Maffioletti & Ulrich Schmidt & Carsten Schröder, 2009. "The effect of elicitation methods on ambiguity aversion: an experimental investigation," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 29(2), pages 638-643.
    10. Ghirardato, Paolo & Marinacci, Massimo, 2002. "Ambiguity Made Precise: A Comparative Foundation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 251-289, February.
    11. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    12. Sujoy Mukerji & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2003. "An overview of economic applications of David Schmeidler`s models of decision making under uncertainty," Economics Series Working Papers 165, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    13. Robin M. Hogarth & Hillel J. Einhorn, 1990. "Venture Theory: A Model of Decision Weights," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(7), pages 780-803, July.
    14. Steffen Andersen & Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2008. "Eliciting Risk and Time Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(3), pages 583-618, May.
    15. Ghirardato, Paolo & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2004. "Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 133-173, October.
    16. Paul Dolan & Martin Jones, 2004. "Explaining Attitudes Towards Ambiguity: An Experimental Test Of The Comparative Ignorance Hypothesis," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 51(3), pages 281-301, August.
    17. Carmela Mauro, 2008. "Uncertainty Aversion Vs. Competence: An Experimental Market Study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 301-331, March.
    18. Rakesh K. Sarin & Martin Weber, 1993. "Effects of Ambiguity in Market Experiments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(5), pages 602-615, May.
    19. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    20. Vernon L. Smith, 1969. "Measuring Nonmonetary Utilities in Uncertain Choices: The Ellsberg Urn," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 83(2), pages 324-329.
    21. Larry G. Epstein, 1999. "A Definition of Uncertainty Aversion," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 66(3), pages 579-608.
    22. Craig R. Fox & Amos Tversky, 1995. "Ambiguity Aversion and Comparative Ignorance," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 110(3), pages 585-603.
    23. Isaac, R Mark & James, Duncan, 2000. "Just Who Are You Calling Risk Averse?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 177-187, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. John Griffin, 2015. "Risk Premia and Knightian Uncertainty in an Experimental Market Featuring a Long-Lived Asset," Fordham Economics Discussion Paper Series dp2015-01, Fordham University, Department of Economics.
    2. Qiu, Jianying & Weitzel, Utz, 2011. "Reference dependent ambiguity aversion: theory and experiment," MPRA Paper 35289, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 08 Dec 2011.
    3. John Griffin, 2015. "Risk Premia and Knightian Uncertainty in an Experimental Market Featuring a Long-Lived Asset," Fordham Economics Discussion Paper Series dp2015-01er:dp2015-01, Fordham University, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ambiguity; asset market experiment; comparitive ignorance;

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • G12 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Asset Pricing; Trading Volume; Bond Interest Rates

    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:ala:wpaper:2011-04. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jonathan Alevy). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/ecuaaus.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.