Betting on Machina's reflection example: an Experiment on Ambiguity

Olivier L'Haridon and Laetitia Placido ()

Working Papers from HAL

Abstract: In a recent paper, Machina (2008) suggested choice problems in the spirit of Ellsberg (1961) which challenge tail-separability, an implication of Choquet Expected Utility (CEU) to a similar extent as the Ellsberg paradox challenged the sure-thing principle implied by Subjective Expected Utility (SEU). We have tested choice behavior for bets on one of Machina's choice problems, the reflection example. Our results indicate that tail-separability is violated by a large majority of subjects (over 70% of the sample). These empirical findings complement the theoretical analysis of Machina (2008) and, together, they confirm the need for new approaches in the analysis of ambiguity for decision making.

Keywords: Ambiguity; Choquet Expected Utility; Experimental Economics (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2008-10
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Published in 2008

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
Journal Article: Betting on Machina’s reflection example: an experiment on ambiguity (2010)
Working Paper: Betting on Machina's reflection example: an experiment on ambiguity (2010)
Working Paper: Betting on Machina's reflection example: an experiment on ambiguity (2010)
Working Paper: Betting on Machina's reflection example: an experiment on ambiguity (2010)
Working Paper: Betting on Machina's reflection example: an experiment on ambiguity (2008)
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:hal:wpaper:hal-00580032

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Working Papers from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().