IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/chu/wpaper/08-10.html

Generating ambiguity in the laboratory

Author

Listed:
  • Jack Douglas Stecher

    (Carnegie Mellon University)

  • Timothy Shields

    (Argyros School of Business & Economics, Chapman University)

  • John Dickhaut

    (Economic Science Institute, Chapman University)

Abstract

This article develops a method for drawing samples from which it is impossible to infer any quantile or moment of the underlying distribution. The method provides researchers with a way to give subjects the experience of ambiguity. In any experiment, learning the distribution from experience is impossible for the subjects, essentially because it is impossible for the experimenter. We describe our method mathematically, illustrate it in simulations, and then test it in a laboratory experiment. Our technique does not withhold sampling information, does not assume that the subject is incapable of making statistical inferences, is replicable across experiments, and requires no special apparatus. We compare our method to the techniques used in related experiments that attempt to produce an ambiguous experience for the subjects.

Suggested Citation

  • Jack Douglas Stecher & Timothy Shields & John Dickhaut, 2008. "Generating ambiguity in the laboratory," Working Papers 08-10, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
  • Handle: RePEc:chu:wpaper:08-10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.chapman.edu/ESI/wp/AmbiguityWP0410.pdf
    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. Chen, Daniel L., 2024. "Is ambiguity aversion a preference? Ambiguity aversion without asymmetric information," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    2. Yudistira Permana, 2020. "Explaining satisficing through risk aversion," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 89(4), pages 503-525, November.
    3. Morone, Andrea & Caferra, Rocco, 2024. "The Ambiguity Box: A new tool to generate ambiguity in the lab," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    4. O'Callaghan, Patrick, 2016. "Measuring utility without mixing apples and oranges and eliciting beliefs about stock prices," MPRA Paper 69363, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Brunette, Marielle & Couture, Stéphane & Boun My, Kene, 2025. "Probabilistic ambiguity, outcome ambiguity or both: Does it matter for the decision-maker?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    6. Borgonovo, Emanuele & Marinacci, Massimo, 2015. "Decision analysis under ambiguity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 244(3), pages 823-836.
    7. Takashi Hayashi & Ryoko Wada, 2010. "Choice with imprecise information: an experimental approach," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 355-373, September.
    8. Garcia, Thomas & Massoni, Sébastien & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2020. "Ambiguity and excuse-driven behavior in charitable giving," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    9. Yudistira Permana & Saiqa Akbar & Anisa Nurpita, 2022. "Systemic risk and the financial network system: an experimental investigation," Eurasian Economic Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 12(4), pages 631-651, December.
    10. Stefan T. Trautmann & Ferdinand M. Vieider & Peter P. Wakker, 2011. "Preference Reversals for Ambiguity Aversion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(7), pages 1320-1333, July.
    11. Surajeet Chakravarty & Todd R. Kaplan & Navonil Mustafee, 2020. "Altering Wait Time Information to Reduce A&E Overcrowding," Discussion Papers 2003, University of Exeter, Department of Economics.
    12. Muraviev, Igor & Riedel, Frank & Sass, Linda, 2017. "Kuhn’s Theorem for extensive form Ellsberg games," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 26-41.
    13. John Dickhaut & Radhika Lunawat & Kira Pronin & Jack Stecher, 2011. "Decision making and trade without probabilities," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 48(2), pages 275-288, October.
    14. Pintér, Miklós, 2022. "How to make ambiguous strategies," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    15. John D. Hey & Yudistira Permana & Nuttaporn Rochanahastin, 2018. "When and how to satisfice: an experimental investigation," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 5, pages 121-137, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    16. Qi Liu & Lei Lu & Bo Sun, 2018. "Incentive contracting under ambiguity aversion," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 66(4), pages 929-950, December.
    17. Yang, Chun-Lei & Yao, Lan, 2011. "Ellsberg Paradox and Second-order Preference Theories on Ambiguity: Some New Experimental Evidence," MPRA Paper 28531, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Qi Liu & Lei Lu & Bo Sun, 2017. "Incentive Contracting Under Ambiguity Aversion," International Finance Discussion Papers 1195, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • 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:chu:wpaper:08-10. 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: Megan Luetje (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/esichus.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.