IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ema/worpap/2018-08.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Precise versus imprecise datasets: revisiting ambiguity attitudes in the Ellsberg paradox

Author

Listed:
  • Roxane Bricet

    () (Université de Cergy-Pontoise, THEMA)

Abstract

Most of real-life decision problems are usually characterized by uncertainty regarding the probability distribution of outcomes. This article experimentally investigates individual’s attitude towards partial ambiguity, defined by situations where more or less precise sets of observations are available to the agents. Drawing on Ellsberg’s 2-urns experiment, I depart from the classic design and describe both urns by datasets with different degrees of precision. As a result, most subjects behave in conformity with the Expected Utility Hypothesis although a significant proportion of choices can still be interpreted as an expression of non-neutral ambiguity attitude. I calculate an individual score of ambiguity-sensitivity which suggests a significant bias towards ambiguity-aversion, but weaker than in the related literature.

Suggested Citation

  • Roxane Bricet, 2018. "Precise versus imprecise datasets: revisiting ambiguity attitudes in the Ellsberg paradox," THEMA Working Papers 2018-08, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
  • Handle: RePEc:ema:worpap:2018-08
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://thema.u-cergy.fr/IMG/pdf/2018-08.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eyal Ert & Stefan Trautmann, 2014. "Sampling experience reverses preferences for ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 31-42, August.
    2. Larry G. Epstein, 2010. "A Paradox for the “Smooth Ambiguity” Model of Preference," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(6), pages 2085-2099, November.
    3. repec:wly:emetrp:v:85:y:2017:i::p:1239-1260 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1991. "Does the Random-Lottery Incentive System Elicit True Preferences? An Experimental Investigation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(4), pages 971-978, September.
    5. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Umut Keskin & Olivier L’haridon & Chen Li, 2018. "The Effect of Learning on Ambiguity Attitudes," Post-Print halshs-01525391, HAL.
    6. Jürgen Eichberger & Simon Grant & David Kelsey, 2016. "Randomization and dynamic consistency," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 62(3), pages 547-566, August.
    7. Gilboa,Itzhak & Schmeidler,David, 2001. "A Theory of Case-Based Decisions," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521802345, June.
    8. John Hey & Jinkwon Lee, 2005. "Do subjects remember the past?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 9-18.
    9. Ghirardato, Paolo & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2004. "Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 133-173, October.
    10. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    11. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    12. Bade, Sophie, 2015. "Randomization devices and the elicitation of ambiguity-averse preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PA), pages 221-235.
    13. Han Bleichrodt & Martin Filko & Amit Kothiyal & Peter P. Wakker, 2017. "Making Case-Based Decision Theory Directly Observable," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(1), pages 123-151, February.
    14. Howard Raiffa, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms: Comment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(4), pages 690-694.
    15. repec:wsi:ccexxx:v:03:y:2012:i:02:n:s2010007812500078 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Grether, David M & Plott, Charles R, 1979. "Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 623-638, September.
    17. Karni, Edi & Safra, Zvi, 1987. ""Preference Reversal' and the Observability of Preferences by Experimental Methods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(3), pages 675-685, May.
    18. J. Ford & D. Kelsey & W. Pang, 2013. "Information and ambiguity: herd and contrarian behaviour in financial markets," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(1), pages 1-15, July.
    19. Ayala Arad & Gabrielle Gayer, 2012. "Imprecise Data Sets as a Source of Ambiguity: A Model and Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 188-202, January.
    20. Brit Grosskopf & Rajiv Sarin & Elizabeth Watson, 2015. "An experiment on case-based decision making," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 639-666, December.
    21. Holt, Charles A, 1986. "Preference Reversals and the Independence Axiom," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(3), pages 508-515, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Preferences for information precision; Ambiguity; Ellsberg paradox; Experiment.;

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • 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:ema:worpap:2018-08. 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: (Stefania Marcassa). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/themafr.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.