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
â€˜Ambiguous beliefsâ€™ 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 â€˜maximum likelihood updateâ€™ and the â€˜full Bayesian updateâ€™ have been axiomatized. This experimental study attempts to test the descriptive validity of these two theories by using the Ellsberg experiment framework.
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (24) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ ... type/journal_article link to article abstract page (text/html)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
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 Keith Waters ().