An experimental study of updating ambiguous beliefs

Michèle Cohen, Itzhak Gilboa, Jean-Yves Jaffray and David Schmeidler

Risk, Decision and Policy, 2000, vol. 5, issue 2, 123-133

Abstract: ‘Ambiguous beliefs’ are beliefs which are inconsistent with a unique, additive prior. The problem of their update in face of new information has been dealt with in the theoretical literature, and received several contradictory answers. In particular, the ‘maximum likelihood update’ and the ‘full Bayesian update’ have been axiomatized. This experimental study attempts to test the descriptive validity of these two theories by using the Ellsberg experiment framework.

Date: 2000
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (47)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ ... type/journal_article link to article abstract page (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cup:rdepol:v:5:y:2000:i:02:p:123-133_00

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Risk, Decision and Policy from Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kirk Stebbing ().