Ambiguity Attitudes, Framing and Consistency

Theory and Decision 81 (3):313-337 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

We use probability-matching variations on Ellsberg’s single-urn experiment to assess three questions: (1) How sensitive are ambiguity attitudes to changes from a gain to a loss frame? (2) How sensitive are ambiguity attitudes to making ambiguity easier to recognize? (3) What is the relation between subjects’ consistency of choice and the ambiguity attitudes their choices display? Contrary to most other studies, we find that a switch from a gain to a loss frame does not lead to a switch from ambiguity aversion to ambiguity neutrality and/or ambiguity seeking. We also find that making ambiguity easier to recognize has little effect. Finally, we find that while ambiguity aversion does not depend on consistency, other attitudes do: consistent choosers are much more likely to be ambiguity neutral, while ambiguity seeking is much more frequent among highly inconsistent choosers.

Similar books and articles

Jaffray’s ideas on ambiguity.Peter P. Wakker - 2011 - Theory and Decision 71 (1):11-22.
Foundations of ambiguity and economic modelling.Sujoy Mukerji - 2009 - Economics and Philosophy 25 (3):297-302.

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-02-26

Downloads
803 (#18,197)

6 months
120 (#29,272)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Alex Voorhoeve
London School of Economics

References found in this work

The Foundations of Statistics.Leonard J. Savage - 1954 - Wiley Publications in Statistics.
The Foundations of Statistics.Leonard J. Savage - 1956 - Philosophy of Science 23 (2):166-166.
The Foundations of Statistics.Leonard J. Savage - 1954 - Synthese 11 (1):86-89.
Prospect Theory: For Risk and Ambiguity.Peter P. Wakker - 2010 - Cambridge University Press.
Rational Decisions.Ken Binmore - 2009 - Princeton University Press.

View all 13 references / Add more references