Assessing Multiple Prior Models of Behaviour under Ambiguity
The recent spate of theoretical models of behaviour under ambiguity can be partitioned into two sets: those involving multiple priors (in which the probabilities of the various events are not known but probabilities can be attached to the various possible values for the probabilities) and those not involving multiple priors. This paper concentrates on the first set and provides an experimental investigation into recently proposed theories. Using an appropriate experimental interface, in which the probabilities on the various possibilities are explicitly stated, we examine the fitted and predictive power of the various theories. We first estimate subject-by-subject, and then we estimateand predict using a mixture model over the contending theories. The individual estimates suggest that 25% of our 149 subjects have behaviour consistent with Expected Utility, 54% with the Smooth Model (of Klibanoff et al, 2005), 12% with Rank Dependent Expected Utility and 9% with the Alpha Model (of Ghirardato et al 2004); these figures are very close to the mixing proportions obtained from the mixture estimates. However, if we classify our subjects through the posterior probabilities (given all the evidence) of each of them being of the various types: using the estimates we get 38%, 19%, 28% and 16% (for EU, Smooth, Rank Dependent and Alpha); while using the predictions 36%, 19%, 33% and 11%. Interestingly the older models (EU and RD) seem to fare relatively better, suggesting that representing ambiguity through multiple priors is perceived by subjects as risk, rather than ambiguity
|Date of creation:||Jan 2012|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: (0)1904 323776
Fax: (0)1904 323759
Web page: http://www.york.ac.uk/economics/
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- John D Hey & Noemi Pace, .
"The Explanatory and Predictive Power of Non Two-Stage-Probability Theories of Decision Making Under Ambiguity,"
11/22, Department of Economics, University of York.
- John Hey & Noemi Pace, 2014. "The explanatory and predictive power of non two-stage-probability theories of decision making under ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 1-29, August.
- Noemi Pace & John D Hey, 2011. "The Explanatory and Predictive Power of Non Two-Stage-Probability Theories of Decision Making Under Ambiguity," Working Papers 2011_12, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
- Halevy, Yoram, 2005.
"Ellsberg Revisited: an Experimental Study,"
Microeconomics.ca working papers
halevy-05-07-26-11-51-13, Vancouver School of Economics, revised 25 Feb 2014.
- Schmeidler, David, 1989.
"Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity,"
Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-87, May.
- David Schmeidler, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7662, David K. Levine.
- Segal, Uzi, 1987.
"The Ellsberg Paradox and Risk Aversion: An Anticipated Utility Approach,"
International Economic Review,
Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 28(1), pages 175-202, February.
- Uzi Segal, 1985. "The Ellsberg Paradox and Risk Aversion: An Anticipated Utility Approach," UCLA Economics Working Papers 362, UCLA Department of Economics.
- David Ahn & Syngjoo Choi & Douglas Gale & Shachar Kariv, 2008.
"Estimating Ambiguity Aversion in a Portfolio Choice Experiment,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
122247000000001989, David K. Levine.
- David Ahn & Syngjoo Choi & Douglas Gale & Shachar Kariv, 2014. "Estimating ambiguity aversion in a portfolio choice experiment," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 5, pages 195-223, 07.
- 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.
- Thibault Gajdos & Takashi Hayashi & Jean-Marc Tallon & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2008.
"Attitude toward imprecise information,"
Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers)
- Thibault Gajdos & Takashi Hayashi & Jean-Marc Tallon & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2006. "Attitude toward imprecise information," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques v06081, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
- Thibault Gajdos & Takashi Hayashi & Jean-Marc Tallon & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2006. "Attitude toward imprecise information," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00130179, HAL.
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
7656, David K. Levine.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
- Peter Moffatt & Simon Peters, 2001. "Testing for the Presence of a Tremble in Economic Experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 221-228, December.
- Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
- PREMINGER, Arie & WETTSTEIN, David, .
"Using the penalized likelihood method for model selection with nuisance parameters present only under the alternative: an application to switching regression models,"
CORE Discussion Papers RP
1811, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- Arie Preminger & David Wettstein, 2005. "Using the Penalized Likelihood Method for Model Selection with Nuisance Parameters Present only under the Alternative: An Application to Switching Regression Models," Journal of Time Series Analysis, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(5), pages 715-741, 09.
- Ben Greiner, 2004. "The Online Recruitment System ORSEE 2.0 - A Guide for the Organization of Experiments in Economics," Working Paper Series in Economics 10, University of Cologne, Department of Economics.
- Sujoy Mukerji & Peter Klibanoff, 2002.
"A Smooth Model of Decision,Making Under Ambiguity,"
Economics Series Working Papers
113, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
- John Hey & Gianna Lotito & Anna Maffioletti, 2010.
"The descriptive and predictive adequacy of theories of decision making under uncertainty/ambiguity,"
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,
Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 81-111, October.
- John D Hey & Gianna Lotito & Anna Maffioletti, 2008. "The Descriptive and Predictive Adequacy of Theories of Decision Making Under Uncertainty/Ambiguity," Discussion Papers 08/04, Department of Economics, University of York.
- Conte, Anna & Hey, John D. & Moffatt, Peter G., 2011.
"Mixture models of choice under risk,"
Journal of Econometrics,
Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 79-88, May.
- Steffen Andersen & Glenn Harrison & Morten Lau & E. RutstrÃ¶m, 2006.
"Elicitation using multiple price list formats,"
Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 383-405, December.
- Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
- Ghirardato, Paolo & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2004. "Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 133-173, October.
- repec:hal:journl:halshs-00451982 is not listed on IDEAS
- Mohammed Abdellaoui & Aurelien Baillon & Laetitia Placido & Peter P. Wakker, 2011. "The Rich Domain of Uncertainty: Source Functions and Their Experimental Implementation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 695-723, April.
- Andersen, Steffen & Fountain, John & Harrison, Glenn W. & Rutström, Elisabet E., 2009. "Estmating Aversion to Uncertainty," Working Papers 07-2009, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Economics.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:yor:yorken:12/01. 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: (Paul Hodgson)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.