IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/aue/wpaper/2572.html

Comparative Ignorance as an Explanation of Ambiguity Aversion and Ellsberg Choices: A Survey with a New Proposal for Bayesian Training

Author

Listed:
  • Phoebe Koundouri
  • Nikitas Pittis

    (University of Piraeus, Greece)

  • Panagiotis Samartzis
  • Konstantinos Georgalos

Abstract

Ellsberg-type choices challenge the Bayesian theory of Subjective Expected Utility Maximization (SEUM) and reveal a key behavioural trait: Ambiguity Aversion (AA). Two main interpretations of AA exist. One treats AA as rational; the other sees it as a psychological bias. This paper adopts the latter view and focuses on the leading psychological account of AA, Fox and Tversky's (1995) Comparative Ignorance Hypothesis (CIH). CIH argues that AA arises as a "comparative effect" when a decision maker (DM) feels epistemically inferior for some events relative to others. In such cases, the DM becomes averse to betting on the epistemically weaker events. The paper has three goals. First, it surveys the literature on CIH. Second, it introduces a new "Bayesian Training" (BT) procedure grounded in counter factual thinking. A DM who engages in BT may escape comparative ignorance, reduce AA, and align more closely with Bayesian behaviour. Finally, we present the results of an economic experiment where we aim to test the impact of Bayesian training on behaviour.

Suggested Citation

  • Phoebe Koundouri & Nikitas Pittis & Panagiotis Samartzis & Konstantinos Georgalos, 2025. "Comparative Ignorance as an Explanation of Ambiguity Aversion and Ellsberg Choices: A Survey with a New Proposal for Bayesian Training," DEOS Working Papers 2572, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    • Handle: RePEc:aue:wpaper:2572
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wpa.deos.aueb.gr/docs/2025.Counter.Factual.pdf
    File Function: First version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chew Soo Hong & Mark Ratchford & Jacob S. Sagi, 2018. "You Need to Recognise Ambiguity to Avoid It," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(614), pages 2480-2506, September.
    2. Stephen G. Dimmock & Roy Kouwenberg & Peter P. Wakker, 2016. "Ambiguity Attitudes in a Large Representative Sample," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(5), pages 1363-1380, May.
    3. Gijs Kuilen, 2009. "Subjective Probability Weighting and the Discovered Preference Hypothesis," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(1), pages 1-22, July.
    4. Dominiak, Adam & Duersch, Peter & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2012. "A dynamic Ellsberg urn experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 625-638.
    5. Benjamin Enke, 2020. "What You See Is All There Is," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(3), pages 1363-1398.
    6. repec:dau:papers:123456789/7333 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Fabian Herweg & Svenja Hippel & Daniel Müller & Fabio Römeis, 2024. "Axiom Preferences and Choice Mistakes under Risk," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 326, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    8. John D. Hey, 2018. "Does Repetition Improve Consistency?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 2, pages 13-62, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Alejandro Martínez-Marquina & Muriel Niederle & Emanuel Vespa, 2019. "Failures in Contingent Reasoning: The Role of Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(10), pages 3437-3474, October.
    10. Chen, Yan & Katuscak, Peter & Ozdenoren, Emre, 2007. "Sealed bid auctions with ambiguity: Theory and experiments," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 513-535, September.
    11. Aurélien Baillon & Zhenxing Huang & Asli Selim & Peter P. Wakker, 2018. "Measuring Ambiguity Attitudes for All (Natural) Events," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1839-1858, September.
    12. Ignacio Esponda & Emanuel Vespa, 2024. "Contingent Thinking and the Sure-Thing Principle: Revisiting Classic Anomalies in the Laboratory," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 91(5), pages 2806-2831.
    13. Zachary Breig & Paul Feldman, 2024. "Revealing risky mistakes through revisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 227-254, June.
    14. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Aurelien Baillon & Laetitia Placido & Peter P. Wakker, 2011. "The Rich Domain of Uncertainty: Source Functions and Their Experimental Implementation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 695-723, April.
    15. Kenneth R. Maccrimmon, 1968. "Descriptive and Normative Implications of the Decision-Theory Postulates," International Economic Association Series, in: Karl Borch & Jan Mossin (ed.), Risk and Uncertainty, chapter 0, pages 3-32, Palgrave Macmillan.
    16. Fabian Herweg & Svenja Hippel & Daniel Müller & Fabio Römeis, 2024. "Axiom Preferences and Choice Mistakes under Risk," CESifo Working Paper Series 11166, CESifo.
    17. Druckman, James N., 2001. "Evaluating framing effects," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 91-101, February.
    18. Nicky Nicholls & Aylit Romm & Alexander Zimper, 2015. "Erratum to: The impact of statistical learning on violations of the sure-thing principle," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 117-117, April.
    19. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    20. Kirby Nielsen & John Rehbeck, 2022. "When Choices Are Mistakes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(7), pages 2237-2268, July.
    21. Gijs Kuilen & Peter Wakker, 2006. "Learning in the Allais paradox," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 155-164, December.
    22. Michael H. Birnbaum & Ulrich Schmidt, 2015. "The Impact of Learning by Thought on Violations of Independence and Coalescing," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 144-152.
    23. Shawn P. Curley & Mark J. Young & J. Frank Yates, 1989. "Characterizing Physicians' Perceptions of Ambiguity," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 9(2), pages 116-124, June.
    24. repec:dau:papers:123456789/7357 is not listed on IDEAS
    25. Steven J. Humphrey & Nadia-Yasmine Kruse, 2024. "Who accepts Savage’s axiom now?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 1-17, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel J. Benjamin & Mark Alan Fontana & Miles Kimball, 2020. "Reconsidering Risk Aversion," GRU Working Paper Series GRU_2020_026, City University of Hong Kong, Department of Economics and Finance, Global Research Unit.
    2. Walter, Johannes & Biermann, Jan & Horton, John, 2024. "Advised by an Algorithm: Learning with Different Informational Resources," VfS Annual Conference 2024 (Berlin): Upcoming Labor Market Challenges 302407, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    3. Ignacio Esponda & Emanuel Vespa & Sevgi Yuksel, 2024. "Mental Models and Learning: The Case of Base-Rate Neglect," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 114(3), pages 752-782, March.
    4. Steven J. Humphrey & Nadia-Yasmine Kruse, 2024. "Who accepts Savage’s axiom now?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 1-17, February.
    5. Li, Chen & Turmunkh, Uyanga & Wakker, Peter P., 2020. "Social and strategic ambiguity versus betrayal aversion," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 272-287.
    6. Yiting Chen & Songfa Zhong, 2024. "Source Dependence in Effort Provision," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 65(3), pages 1499-1517, August.
    7. Li, Jiangyan & Fairley, Kim & Fenneman, Achiel, 2024. "Does it matter how we produce ambiguity in experiments?," MPRA Paper 122336, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Fabian Herweg & Svenja Hippel & Daniel Müller & Fabio Römeis, 2024. "Axiom Preferences and Choice Mistakes under Risk," CESifo Working Paper Series 11166, CESifo.
    9. Zachary Breig & Paul Feldman, 2024. "Revealing risky mistakes through revisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 227-254, June.
    10. Kanin Anantanasuwong & Roy Kouwenberg & Olivia S. Mitchell & Kim Peijnenburg, 2024. "Ambiguity attitudes for real-world sources: field evidence from a large sample of investors," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 27(3), pages 548-581, July.
    11. Ilke Aydogan & Yu Gao, 2020. "Experience and rationality under risk: re-examining the impact of sampling experience," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(4), pages 1100-1128, December.
    12. Thomas Dohmen & Georgios Gerasimou, 2025. "Learning to Maximize Ordinal and Expected Utility, and the Indifference Hypothesis," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2025_687, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    13. Michael H. Birnbaum & Ulrich Schmidt, 2015. "The Impact of Learning by Thought on Violations of Independence and Coalescing," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 144-152.
    14. Fabian Herweg & Svenja Hippel & Daniel Müller & Fabio Römeis, 2024. "Axiom Preferences and Choice Mistakes under Risk," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 326, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    15. Thomas Dohmen & Georgios Gerasimou, 2024. "Convergence to Utility Maximization and the Indifference Hypothesis," Papers 2402.16538, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2025.
    16. Masahide Watanabe & Toshio Fujimi, 2024. "Ambiguity attitudes toward natural and artificial sources in gain and loss domains," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 51-75, February.
    17. Cédric Gutierrez & Emmanuel Kemel, 2021. "Measuring natural source dependence," Working Papers hal-03330409, HAL.
    18. Li, Zheng & Hensher, David A. & Zeng, Jingjing, 2022. "Travel choice behaviour under uncertainty in real-market settings: A source-dependent utility approach," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    19. Minnich, Aljoscha & Roggenkamp, Hauke & Lange, Andreas, 2024. "Ambiguity attitudes and surprises: Experimental evidence on communicating new information within a large population sample," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    20. Fast, Victoria & Sachs, Nikolai & Schnurr, Daniel, 2021. "Privacy Decision-Making in Digital Markets: Eliciting Individuals' Preferences for Transparency," 23rd ITS Biennial Conference, Online Conference / Gothenburg 2021. Digital societies and industrial transformations: Policies, markets, and technologies in a post-Covid world 238020, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C44 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Operations Research; Statistical Decision Theory
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • D89 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Other

    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:aue:wpaper:2572. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ekaterini Glynou (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diauegr.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.