Economics at your fingertips  

Strategic ambiguity and decision-making: an experimental study

David Kelsey and Sara le Roux ()

Theory and Decision, 2018, vol. 84, issue 3, No 5, 387-404

Abstract: Abstract We conducted a set of experiments to compare the effect of ambiguity in single-person decisions and games. Our results suggest that ambiguity has a bigger impact in games than in ball and urn problems. We find that ambiguity has the opposite effect in games of strategic substitutes and complements. This confirms a theoretical prediction made by Eichberger and Kelsey (J Econ Theory 106:436–466, 2002). In addition, we note that subjects’ ambiguity attitudes appear to be context dependent: ambiguity loving in single-person decisions and ambiguity averse in games. This is consistent with the findings of Kelsey and le Roux (Theory Decis 79:667–688, 2015).

Keywords: Ambiguity; Choquet expected utility; Strategic complements; Strategic substitutes; Ellsberg urn (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (86) Track citations by RSS feed

Downloads: (external link) Abstract (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
Working Paper: Strategic Ambiguity and Decision-making: An Experimental Study (2016) Downloads
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:

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer. ... ry/journal/11238/PS2

DOI: 10.1007/s11238-017-9618-8

Access Statistics for this article

Theory and Decision is currently edited by Mohammed Abdellaoui

More articles in Theory and Decision from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla ().

Page updated 2020-09-06
Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:84:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s11238-017-9618-8