IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bon/boncrc/crctr224_2023_440.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Experimental Evidence on the Relationship Between Perceived Ambiguity and Likelihood Insensitivity

Author

Listed:
  • Luca Henkel

Abstract

Observed individual behavior in the presence of ambiguity shows insufficient responsiveness to changes in subjective likelihoods. Despite being integral to theoretical models and relevant in many domains, evidence on the causes and determining factors of such likelihood insensitive behavior is scarce. This paper investigates the role of beliefs in the form of ambiguity perception – the extent to which a decision-maker has difficulties assigning a single probability to each possible event – as a potential determinant. Using an experiment, I elicit measures of ambiguity perception and likelihood insensitivity and exogenously vary the level of perceived ambiguity. The results provide strong support for a perception-based explanation of likelihood insensitivity. The two measures are highly correlated at the individual level, and exogenously increasing ambiguity perception increases insensitivity, suggesting a causal relationship. In contrast, ambiguity perception is unrelated to ambiguity aversion – the extent to which a decision-maker dislikes the presence of ambiguity.

Suggested Citation

  • Luca Henkel, 2023. "Experimental Evidence on the Relationship Between Perceived Ambiguity and Likelihood Insensitivity," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2023_440, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:bon:boncrc:crctr224_2023_440
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.crctr224.de/research/discussion-papers/archive/dp440
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark J. Machina, 2014. "Ambiguity Aversion with Three or More Outcomes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(12), pages 3814-3840, December.
    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. Dong, Xueqi, 2021. "Uncertainty Aversion and Convexity in Portfolio Choice," MPRA Paper 108264, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Chiu, W. Henry, 2019. "Comparative statics in an ordinal theory of choice under risk," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 113-123.
    3. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Horst Zank, 2023. "Source and rank-dependent utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(4), pages 949-981, May.
    4. Epper, Thomas & Fehr-Duda, Helga, 2017. "A Tale of Two Tails: On the Coexistence of Overweighting and Underweighting of Rare Extreme Events," Economics Working Paper Series 1705, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    5. Richard J. Arend, 2020. "Strategic decision-making under ambiguity: a new problem space and a proposed optimization approach," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(3), pages 1231-1251, November.
    6. Dong, Xueqi & Liu, Shuo Li, 2021. "Proportional Tax under Ambiguity," MPRA Paper 107668, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Divya Aggarwal & Pitabas Mohanty, 2022. "Influence of imprecise information on risk and ambiguity preferences: Experimental evidence," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(4), pages 1025-1038, June.
    8. Safra, Zvi & Segal, Uzi, 2022. "A lot of ambiguity," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    9. Evren, Özgür, 2019. "Recursive non-expected utility: Connecting ambiguity attitudes to risk preferences and the level of ambiguity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 285-307.
    10. Michel Grabisch & Benjamin Monet & Vassili Vergopoulos, 2023. "Subjective expected utility through stochastic independence," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 76(3), pages 723-757, October.
    11. 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.
    12. Yijuan Chen & Xiangting Hu & Sanxi Li, 2022. "Complementarity between online and offline channels for quality signaling," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 135(1), pages 49-74, January.
    13. Fooken, Jonas, 2023. "Trusting when risk and ambiguity create opportunities for exploitation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    14. Keiran Sharpe, 2023. "On the Ellsberg and Machina paradoxes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 95(4), pages 539-573, November.
    15. Florian H. Schneider & Martin Schonger, 2019. "An Experimental Test of the Anscombe–Aumann Monotonicity Axiom," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(4), pages 1667-1677, April.
    16. Anastasia Burkovskaya, 2020. "On Machina’s paradoxes and limited attention," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 8(2), pages 231-244, October.
    17. Jörg Oechssler & Alex Roomets, 2021. "Savage vs. Anscombe-Aumann: an experimental investigation of ambiguity frameworks," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(3), pages 405-416, May.
    18. Kfir Eliaz & Pietro Ortoleva, 2016. "Multidimensional Ellsberg," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(8), pages 2179-2197, August.
    19. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Horst Zank, 2022. "Source and Rank-dependent Utility," Post-Print hal-03924295, HAL.
    20. Bommier, Antoine, 2017. "A dual approach to ambiguity aversion," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 104-118.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Ambiguity; decision-making under uncertainty; likelihood insensitivity; multiple prior models;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • 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
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    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:bon:boncrc:crctr224_2023_440. 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: CRC Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.crctr224.de .

    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.