IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/oxf/wpaper/449.html

On the Smooth Ambiguity Model: A Reply

Author

Listed:
  • Sujoy Mukerji
  • Peter Klibanoff
  • Massimo Marinacci

Abstract

Epstein (2009) describes three Ellsberg-style thought experiments and argues that they pose difficulties for the smooth ambiguity model of decision making under uncertainty developed by Klibanoff, Marinacci and Mukerji (2005). We revisit these thought exeperiments and find, to the contrary, that they either point to strengths of the smooth ambiguity model compared to other models, such as the maximum expected utility model (Gilboa and Schmeidler, 1989), or, in the case of one thought experiment, raise criticisms that apply equally to a broad range of current ambiguity models.

Suggested Citation

  • Sujoy Mukerji & Peter Klibanoff & Massimo Marinacci, 2009. "On the Smooth Ambiguity Model: A Reply," Economics Series Working Papers 449, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:oxf:wpaper:449
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:b8a2a266-6e64-4fb3-be51-8af2d074fac4
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - 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:oxf:wpaper:449. 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: Anne Pouliquen The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Anne Pouliquen to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sfeixuk.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.