Strategic ambiguity and decision-making: an experimental study
David Kelsey and
Sara le Roux ()
Theory and Decision, 2018, vol. 84, issue 3, 387-404
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)
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (60) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11238-017-9618-8 Abstract (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
Working Paper: Strategic Ambiguity and Decision-making: An Experimental Study (2016)
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:kap:theord:v:84:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s11238-017-9618-8
Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer. ... ry/journal/11238/PS2
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 ().