IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ebg/heccah/0909.html

Betting on Machina's reflection example: an experiment on ambiguity

Author

Listed:
  • L’Haridon, Olivier
  • Placido, Lætitia

Abstract

In a recent paper, Machina (2008) suggested choice problems in the spirit of Ellsberg (1961) which challenge tail-separability, an implication of Choquet Expected Utility (CEU) to a similar extent as the Ellsberg paradox challenged the sure-thing principle implied by Subjective Expected Utility (SEU). We have tested choice behavior for bets on one of Machina’s choice problems, the reflection example. Our results indicate that tail-separability is violated by a large majority of subjects (over 70% of the sample). These empirical findings complement the theoretical analysis of Machina (2008) and, together, they confirm the need for new approaches in the analysis of ambiguity for decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • L’Haridon, Olivier & Placido, Lætitia, 2008. "Betting on Machina's reflection example: an experiment on ambiguity," HEC Research Papers Series 909, HEC Paris.
    • Handle: RePEc:ebg:heccah:0909
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.hec.fr/var/fre/storage/original/application/f9860639b9b8de76ff246c4730cc3389.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:ebg:heccah:0909. 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: Antoine Haldemann The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Antoine Haldemann to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hecpafr.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.