How do people cope with an ambiguous situation when it becomes even more ambiguous?
Jörg Oechssler and
No 528, Working Papers from University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics
As illustrated by the famous Ellsberg paradox, many subjects prefer to bet on events with known rather than with unknown probabilities, i.e., they are ambiguity averse. In an experiment, we examine subjects’ choices when there is an additional source of ambiguity, namely, when they do not know how much money they can win. Using a standard independence assumption, we show that ambiguity averse subjects should continue to strictly prefer the urn with known probabilities. In contrast, our results show that many subjects no longer exhibit such a strict preference. This should have important ramifications for modeling ambiguity aversion.
Keywords: ambiguity aversion; uncertainty; minmax-expected utility (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: C91 D81 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-cbe, nep-evo, nep-exp, nep-neu and nep-upt
Note: This paper is part of http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/view/schriftenreihen/sr-3.html
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn=urn:nbn:de:bsz:16-opus-134394 Frontdoor page on HeiDOK (text/html)
http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/ ... _Schnedler_dp528.pdf (application/pdf)
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:awi:wpaper:0528
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in Working Papers from University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Gabi Rauscher ( this e-mail address is bad, please contact ).