Coherent-ambiguity aversion is defined within the (Klibanoff et al., Econometrica 73:1849–1892, 2005) smooth-ambiguity model (henceforth KMM) as the combination of choice-ambiguity and value-ambiguity aversion. Five ambiguous decision tasks are analyzed theoretically,where an individual faces two-stage lotteries with binomial, uniform, or unknown second-order probabilities. Theoretical predictions are then tested through a 10-task experiment. In (unambiguous) tasks 1–5, risk aversion is elicited through both a portfolio choice method and a BDM mechanism. In (ambiguous) tasks 6–10, choice-ambiguity aversion is elicited through the portfolio choice method, while value-ambiguity aversion comes about through the BDM mechanism. The behavior of over 75% of classified subjects is in line with the KMM model in all tasks 6–10, independent of their degree of risk aversion. Furthermore, the percentage of coherent-ambiguity-averse subjects is lower in the binomial than in the uniform and in the unknown treatments, with only the latter difference being significant. The most part of coherent-ambiguity-loving subjects show a high risk aversion.

Coherent-ambiguity aversion is defined within the (Klibanoff et al., Econometrica 73: 1849-1892, 2005) smooth-ambiguity model (henceforth KMM) as the combination of choice-ambiguity and value-ambiguity aversion. Five ambiguous decision tasks are analyzed theoretically, where an individual faces two-stage lotteries with binomial, uniform, or unknown second-order probabilities. Theoretical predictions are then tested through a 10-task experiment. In (unambiguous) tasks 1-5, risk aversion is elicited through both a portfolio choice method and a BDM mechanism. In (ambiguous) tasks 6-10, choice-ambiguity aversion is elicited through the portfolio choice method, while value-ambiguity aversion comes about through the BDM mechanism. The behavior of over 75% of classified subjects is in line with the KMM model in all tasks 6-10, independent of their degree of risk aversion. Furthermore, the percentage of coherent-ambiguity-averse subjects is lower in the binomial than in the uniform and in the unknown treatments, with only the latter difference being significant. The most part of coherent-ambiguity-loving subjects show a high risk aversion.

Eliciting ambiguity aversion in unknown and in compound lotteries: A smooth ambiguity model experimental study.

PACE, Noemi
2014-01-01

Abstract

Coherent-ambiguity aversion is defined within the (Klibanoff et al., Econometrica 73: 1849-1892, 2005) smooth-ambiguity model (henceforth KMM) as the combination of choice-ambiguity and value-ambiguity aversion. Five ambiguous decision tasks are analyzed theoretically, where an individual faces two-stage lotteries with binomial, uniform, or unknown second-order probabilities. Theoretical predictions are then tested through a 10-task experiment. In (unambiguous) tasks 1-5, risk aversion is elicited through both a portfolio choice method and a BDM mechanism. In (ambiguous) tasks 6-10, choice-ambiguity aversion is elicited through the portfolio choice method, while value-ambiguity aversion comes about through the BDM mechanism. The behavior of over 75% of classified subjects is in line with the KMM model in all tasks 6-10, independent of their degree of risk aversion. Furthermore, the percentage of coherent-ambiguity-averse subjects is lower in the binomial than in the uniform and in the unknown treatments, with only the latter difference being significant. The most part of coherent-ambiguity-loving subjects show a high risk aversion.
2014
77
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Attanasi_Gollier_Montesano_Pace_T&D.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Documento in Post-print
Licenza: Accesso chiuso-personale
Dimensione 834.27 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
834.27 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in ARCA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10278/39859
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 21
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 22
social impact