Comparative Ignorance and the Ellsberg Paradox

Clare Chua Chow and Rakesh K Sarin

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2001, vol. 22, issue 2, 129-39

Abstract: We investigate the evaluation of known (where probability is known) and unknown (where probability is unknown) bets in comparative and non-comparative contexts. A series of experiments support the finding that ambiguity avoidance persists in both comparative and non-comparative conditions. The price difference between known and unknown bets is, however, larger in a comparative evaluation than in separate evaluation. Our results are consistent with Fox and Tversky's (1995) Comparative Ignorance Hypothesis, but we find that the strong result obtained by Fox and Tversky is more fragile and the complete disappearance of ambiguity aversion in non-comparative condition may not be as robust as Fox and Tversky had supposed. Copyright 2001 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

Date: 2001
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (81)

Downloads: (external link)
http://journals.kluweronline.com/issn/0895-5646/contents link to full text (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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:kap:jrisku:v:22:y:2001:i:2:p:129-39

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer. ... ry/journal/11166/PS2

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty is currently edited by W. Kip Viscusi

More articles in Journal of Risk and Uncertainty from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().