IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ema/worpap/2018-10.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The price for instrumentally valuable information

Author

Listed:
  • Roxane Bricet

    () (Université de Cergy-Pontoise, THEMA)

Abstract

In this article, I propose an experimental design to measure the value of instrumental information in a model-free setup. In particular, this study provides operating instructions to test Blackwell’s ranking of informative structures under risk and under ambiguity. Drawing on Ellsberg’s two-color thought experiment, the subject faces three different types of choice situations: simple risk, compound risk and ambiguity. The original experiment is modified by enabling the agent to observe random draws with replacement so that he can learn about the composition of the urns. The proposed design allows to estimate the value of signals that differ in their informativeness and how it relates to ambiguity attitudes.

Suggested Citation

  • Roxane Bricet, 2018. "The price for instrumentally valuable information," THEMA Working Papers 2018-10, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    • Handle: RePEc:ema:worpap:2018-10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://thema.u-cergy.fr/IMG/pdf/2018-10.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mitchell Hoffman, 2016. "How is Information Valued? Evidence from Framed Field Experiments," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 126(595), pages 1884-1911, September.
    2. Eyal Ert & Stefan Trautmann, 2014. "Sampling experience reverses preferences for ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 31-42, August.
    3. Halevy, Yoram & Ozdenoren, Emre, 2008. "Uncertainty and Compound Lotteries: Calibration," Microeconomics.ca working papers yoram_halevy-2008-7, Vancouver School of Economics, revised 17 Jun 2008.
    4. Hela Maafi, 2011. "Preference Reversals Under Ambiguity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(11), pages 2054-2066, November.
    5. Trautmann, Stefan T. & Zeckhauser, Richard J., 2013. "Shunning uncertainty: The neglect of learning opportunities," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 44-55.
    6. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Peter Klibanoff & Lætitia Placido, 2015. "Experiments on Compound Risk in Relation to Simple Risk and to Ambiguity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1306-1322, June.
    7. Matthias Sutter & Martin G. Kocher & Daniela Glätzle-Rützler & Stefan T. Trautmann, 2013. "Impatience and Uncertainty: Experimental Decisions Predict Adolescents' Field Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(1), pages 510-531, February.
    8. Baillon, Aurélien & Halevy, Yoram & Li, Chen, 2014. "Experimental Elicitation of Ambiguity Attitude using the Random Incentive System," Microeconomics.ca working papers yoram_halevy-2014-26, Vancouver School of Economics, revised 21 Jul 2015.
    9. Nicholas Bardsley & Robin Cubitt & Graham Loomes & Peter Moffatt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2009. "Experimental Economics: Rethinking the Rules," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 9074.
    10. Arthur Snow, 2010. "Ambiguity and the value of information," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 133-145, April.
    11. Safra, Zvi & Sulganik, Eyal, 1995. "On the Nonexistence of Blackwell's Theorem-Type Results with General Preference Relations," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 187-201, May.
    12. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Umut Keskin & Olivier L’haridon & Chen Li, 2018. "The Effect of Learning on Ambiguity Attitudes," Post-Print halshs-01525391, HAL.
    13. Epstein, Larry G. & Schneider, Martin, 2003. "Recursive multiple-priors," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 1-31, November.
    14. Mark Machina, 2004. "Almost-objective uncertainty," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 24(1), pages 1-54, July.
    15. Louis Lévy-Garboua & Hela Maafi & David Masclet & Antoine Terracol, 2012. "Risk aversion and framing effects," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(1), pages 128-144, March.
    16. Larry G. Epstein & Shaolin Ji, 2017. "Optimal Learning under Robustness and Time-Consistency," Papers 1708.01890, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2019.
    17. Eliaz, Kfir & Schotter, Andrew, 2010. "Paying for confidence: An experimental study of the demand for non-instrumental information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 304-324, November.
    18. Nicky Nicholls & Aylit Romm & Alexander Zimper, 2015. "The impact of statistical learning on violations of the sure-thing principle," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 97-115, April.
    19. Hilton, Ronald W., 1990. "Failure of Blackwell's Theorem under Machina's generalization of expected-utility analysis without the independence axiom," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 233-244, March.
    20. Heyen, Daniel & Wiesenfarth, Boris R., 2015. "Informativeness of experiments for MEU—A recursive definition," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 28-30.
    21. Siniscalchi, Marciano, 2011. "Dynamic choice under ambiguity," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 6(3), September.
    22. Giuseppe Attanasi & Aldo Montesano, 2012. "The price for information about probabilities and its relation with risk and ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(1), pages 125-160, July.
    23. Christian Gollier, 2004. "The Economics of Risk and Time," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262572249.
    24. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    25. Othon M. Moreno & Yaroslav Rosokha, 2016. "Learning under compound risk vs. learning under ambiguity – an experiment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 137-162, December.
    26. Marinacci, Massimo, 1999. "Limit Laws for Non-additive Probabilities and Their Frequentist Interpretation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 145-195, February.
    27. Kyoungwon Seo, 2009. "Ambiguity and Second-Order Belief," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(5), pages 1575-1605, September.
    28. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    29. 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.
    30. Peter Klibanoff & Massimo Marinacci & Sujoy Mukerji, 2005. "A Smooth Model of Decision Making under Ambiguity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(6), pages 1849-1892, November.
    31. Eichberger, Jürgen & Guerdjikova, Ani, 2013. "Ambiguity, data and preferences for information – A case-based approach," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(4), pages 1433-1462.
    32. Bade, Sophie, 2015. "Randomization devices and the elicitation of ambiguity-averse preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PA), pages 221-235.
    33. repec:eee:gamebe:v:109:y:2018:i:c:p:21-39 is not listed on IDEAS
    34. Yoram Halevy, 2007. "Ellsberg Revisited: An Experimental Study," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(2), pages 503-536, March.
    35. Li, Jian & Zhou, Junjie, 2016. "Blackwell's informativeness ranking with uncertainty-averse preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 18-29.
    36. Giuseppe Attanasi & Christian Gollier & Aldo Montesano & Noemi Pace, 2014. "Eliciting ambiguity aversion in unknown and in compound lotteries: a smooth ambiguity model experimental study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(4), pages 485-530, December.
    37. 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.
    38. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Peter Klibanoff & Laetitia Placido, 2016. "Experiments on compound risk in relation to simple risk and to ambiguity," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-01301618, HAL.
    39. John Quiggin, 2007. "Ambiguity and the Value of Information: An Almost-objective Events Analysis," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 30(3), pages 409-414, March.
    40. Clare Chua Chow & Rakesh Sarin, 2002. "Known, Unknown, and Unknowable Uncertainties," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 127-138, March.
    41. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Value of Information; Ambiguity; Blackwell’s theorem; Reduction of Compound Lotteries; Ellsberg paradox; Experiment; Prince.;

    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
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness

    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:2018-10. 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.