Ambiguity aversion is the exception
An extensive literature has studied ambiguity aversion in economic decision making, and how ambiguity aversion can account for empirically observed violations of expected utility-based theories. Almost all relevant applied models presume a general dislike of ambiguity. In this paper, we provide a systematic experimental assessment of ambiguity attitudes in different likelihood ranges and in the gain domain, the loss domain and with mixed outcomes. We draw on a unified framework with more than 500 participants and find that ambiguity aversion is the exception, not the rule. We replicate the usual finding of ambiguity aversion for moderate likelihood gains. However, when introducing losses or lower likelihoods, we observe either ambiguity neutrality or even ambiguity seeking behavior. Our results are robust to different elicitation procedures.
|Date of creation:||11 Mar 2015|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.qut.edu.au/research/research-projects/queensland-behavioural-economics-group-qube|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Gary Charness & Edi Karni & Dan Levin, 2013.
"Ambiguity attitudes and social interactions: An experimental investigation,"
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,
Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 1-25, February.
- Gary Charness & Edi Karni & Dan Levin, 2012. "Ambiguity Attitudes and Social Interactions: An Experimental Investigation," Economics Working Paper Archive 590, The Johns Hopkins University,Department of Economics.
- Mohammed Abdellaoui & Frank Vossmann & Martin Weber, 2005. "Choice-Based Elicitation and Decomposition of Decision Weights for Gains and Losses Under Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(9), pages 1384-1399, September.
- Abdellaoui, Mohammed & Vossman, Frank & Weber, Martin, 2003. "Choice-Based Elicitation and Decomposition of Decision Weights for Gains and Losses Under Uncertainty," CEPR Discussion Papers 3756, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Carmela Di Mauro & Anna Maffioletti, 2004. "Attitudes to risk and attitudes to uncertainty: experimental evidence," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(4), pages 357-372.
- Berger, Loïc & Bleichrodt, Han & Eeckhoudt, Louis, 2013. "Treatment decisions under ambiguity," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 559-569.
- BERGER, Loïc & BLEICHRODT, Han & EECKHOUDT, Louis, "undated". "Treatment decisions under ambiguity," CORE Discussion Papers RP 2494, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- L. Berger & H. Bleichrodt & L. Eeckhoudt, 2013. "Treatment decisions under ambiguity," Post-Print hal-00845893, HAL.
- Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
- Christian Gollier, 2011. "Portfolio Choices and Asset Prices: The Comparative Statics of Ambiguity Aversion," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 78(4), pages 1329-1344.
- Gollier, Christian, 2009. "Portfolio Choices and Asset Prices: The Comparative Statics of Ambiguity Aversion," TSE Working Papers 09-068, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
- Gollier, Christian, 2009. "Portfolio Choices and Asset Prices: The Comparative Statics of Ambiguity Aversion," IDEI Working Papers 357, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse, revised 2011.
- David Easley & Maureen O'Hara, 2009. "Ambiguity and Nonparticipation: The Role of Regulation," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(5), pages 1817-1843, May.
- Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt, 2015. "Testing Ambiguity Models through the Measurement of Probabilities for Gains and Losses," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 77-100, May.
- Arthur Snow, 2011. "Ambiguity aversion and the propensities for self-insurance and self-protection," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 27-43, February.
- Budescu, David V. & Kuhn, Kristine M. & Kramer, Karen M. & Johnson, Timothy R., 2002. "Erratum to "Modeling certainty equivalents for imprecise gambles" [Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 88 (2002) 748-768]," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1214-1213, November.
- 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.
- Pascal J. Maenhout, 2004. "Robust Portfolio Rules and Asset Pricing," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 17(4), pages 951-983.
- Dale O. Stah, 2014. "Heterogeneity of Ambiguity Preferences," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 96(4), pages 609-617, October.
- Michael Hoy & Richard Peter & Andreas Richter, 2014. "Take-up for genetic tests and ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 111-133, April.
- Greiner, Ben, 2004. "An Online Recruitment System for Economic Experiments," MPRA Paper 13513, University Library of Munich, Germany. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)