Savage vs. Anscombe-Aumann: an experimental investigation of ambiguity frameworks

Jörg Oechssler and Alex Roomets ()
Additional contact information
Alex Roomets: Franklin and Marshall College

Theory and Decision, 2021, vol. 90, issue 3, No 5, 405-416

Abstract: Abstract The Savage and the Anscombe–Aumann frameworks are the two most popular approaches used when modeling ambiguity. The former is more flexible, but the latter is often preferred for its simplicity. We conduct an experiment where subjects place bets on the joint outcome of an ambiguous urn and a fair coin. We document that more than a third of our subjects make choices that are incompatible with Anscombe–Aumann for any preferences, while the Savage framework is flexible enough to account for subjects’ behaviors.

Keywords: Ellsberg paradox; Ambiguity; Experiment (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11238-020-09778-w Abstract (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
Working Paper: Savage vs. Anscombe-Aumann: An experimental investigation of ambiguity frameworks (2019)
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:theord:v:90:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s11238-020-09778-w

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

DOI: 10.1007/s11238-020-09778-w

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 () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().