Causes of ambiguity aversion: Known versus unknown preferences

Ambiguity aversion appears to have subtle psychological causes. Curley, Yates, and Abrams found that the fear of negative evaluation by others (FNE) increases ambiguity aversion. This paper introduces a design in which preferences can be private information of individuals, so that FNE can be avoided entirely. Thus, we can completely control for FNE and other social factors, and can determine exactly to what extent ambiguity aversion is driven by such social factors. In our experiment ambiguity aversion, while appearing as commonly found in the presence of FNE, disappears entirely if FNE is eliminated. Implications are discussed.      

Ambiguity aversion and the propensities for self-insurance and self-protection

Two models of ambiguity preferences that permit comparative statics analysis of greater ambiguity aversion yield definite predictions concerning propensities for self-insurance and self-protection: The levels of both activities that are optimal for an ambiguity-averse decision maker are higher in the presence of ambiguity than in its absence, and demands for both activities increase with greater ambiguity aversion. The reason is that, at levels optimal for one decision maker, an increase in either activity results in a mean-preserving contraction in the distribution of expected utility in the presence of ambiguity, which is valuable to anyone with the same risk preferences who is more ambiguity averse.     

Ambiguity aversion in the small and in the large for weighted linear utility

The widely observed preference for lotteries involving precise rather than vague of ambiguous probabilities is called ambiguity aversion. Ambiguity aversion cannot be predicted or explained by conventional expected utility models. For the subjectively weighted linear utility (SWLU) model, we define both probability and payoff premiums for ambiguity, and introduce alocal ambiguity aversion function a(u) that is proportional to these ambiguity premiums for small uncertainties. We show that one individual's ambiguity premiums areglobally larger than another's if and only if hisa(u) function is everywhere larger. Ambiguity aversion has been observed to increase 1) when the mean probability of gain increases and 2) when the mean probability of loss decreases. We show that such behavior is equivalent toa(u) increasing in both the gain and loss domains. Increasing ambiguity aversion also explains the observed excess of sellers' over buyers' prices for insurance against an ambiguous probability of loss.     

Risk,ambiguity, and insurance

In a series of experiments, economically sophisticated subjects, including professional actuaries, priced insurance both as consumers and as firms under conditions of ambiguity. Findings support implications of the Einhorn-Hogarth ambiguity model: (1) For low probability-of-loss events, prices of both consumers and firms indicated aversion to ambiguity; (2) As probabilities of losses increased, aversion to ambiguity decreased, with consumers exhibiting ambiguity preference for high probability-of-loss events; and (3) Firms showed greater aversion to ambiguity than consumers. The results are shown to be incompatible with traditional economic analysis of insurance markets and are discussed with respect to the effects of ambiguity on the supply and demand for insurance.University of Chicago Graduate School of BusinessUniversity of Pennsylvania The Wharton School     

Take-up for genetic tests and ambiguity

Under the expected utility hypothesis a costless genetic test has, at worst, zero private value. This happens if it does not affect optimal decisions. If the genetic test facilitates better decision-making for at least one possible test outcome, then it has positive private value. This theoretical result seems to contradict the fact that empirically observed take-up rates for genetic tests are surprisingly low. We demonstrate that if individuals display ambiguity aversion, a costless genetic test that does not affect optimal decisions is never taken. Furthermore, there is a trade-off between aversion against uncertainty of test results and utility gains from better decision-making if optimal decisions depend on the level of information. The reason is that, from an ex-ante view, a genetic test introduces uncertainty of probabilities which diminishes the value of information to an ambiguity-averse decision-maker. Ambiguity aversion regarding test results thus provides an explanation for low take-up rates for genetic tests.     

Ambiguous life expectancy and the demand for annuities

In this paper, ambiguity aversion to uncertain survival probabilities is introduced in a static life-cycle model with a bequest motive to study the optimal demand for annuities. Provided that annuities’ return is sufficiently large, and notably when it is fair, positive annuitization is known to be the optimal strategy of ambiguity neutral individuals. Conversely, we show that the demand for annuities decreases with ambiguity aversion and that there exists a finite degree of aversion above which the demand is non-positive: the optimal strategy is then to either sell annuities short or to hold zero annuities if the former option is not available. To conclude, ambiguity aversion appears to be a relevant candidate for explaining the annuity puzzle.     

Ambiguity aversion in multi-armed bandit problems

In multi-armed bandit problems, information acquired from experimentation is valuable because it tells the agent whether to select a particular option again in the future. This article tests whether people undervalue this information because they are ambiguity averse, or have a distaste for uncertainty about the average quality of each alternative. It is shown that ambiguity averse agents have lower than optimal Gittins indexes, appearing to undervalue information from experimentation, but are willing to pay more than ambiguity neutral agents to learn the true mean of the payoff distribution, appearing to overvalue objectively given information. This prediction is tested with a laboratory experiment that elicits a Gittins index and a willingness to pay on six two-armed bandits. Consistent with the predictions of ambiguity aversion, the Gittins indexes are significantly lower than optimal and willingnesses to pay are significantly higher than optimal.     

Ambiguity Aversion in the Field of Insurance: Insurers’ Attitude to Imprecise and Conflicting Probability Estimates

This article presents the results of a survey designed to test, with economically sophisticated participants, Ellsberg’s ambiguity aversion hypothesis, and Smithson’s conflict aversion hypothesis. Based on an original sample of 78 professional actuaries (all members of the French Institute of Actuaries), this article provides empirical evidence that ambiguity (i.e. uncertainty about the probability) affect insurers’ decision on pricing insurance. It first reveals that premiums are significantly higher for risks when there is ambiguity regarding the probability of the loss. Second, it shows that insurers are sensitive to sources of ambiguity. The participants indeed, charged a higher premium when ambiguity came from conflict and disagreement regarding the probability of the loss than when ambiguity came from imprecision (imprecise forecast about the probability of the loss). This research thus documents the presence of both ambiguity aversion and conflict aversion in the field of insurance, and discuses economic and psychological rationales for the observed behaviours.     

Ambiguity aversion and familiarity bias: Evidence from behavioral and gene association studies

It is increasingly recognized that decision making under uncertainty depends not only on probabilities, but also on psychological factors such as ambiguity and familiarity. Using 325 Beijing subjects, we conduct a neurogenetic study of ambiguity aversion and familiarity bias in an incentivized laboratory setting. For ambiguity aversion, 49.4% of the subjects choose to bet on the 50–50 deck despite the unknown deck paying 20% more. For familiarity bias, 39.6% choose the bet on Beijing’s temperature rather than the corresponding bet with Tokyo even though the latter pays 20% more. We genotype subjects for anxiety-related candidate genes and find a serotonin transporter polymorphism being associated with familiarity bias, but not ambiguity aversion, while the dopamine D5 receptor gene and estrogen receptor beta gene are associated with ambiguity aversion only among female subjects. Our findings contribute to understanding of decision making under uncertainty beyond revealed preference.     

Ellsberg paradox: Ambiguity and complexity aversions compared

We present a simple model where preferences with complexity aversion, rather than ambiguity aversion, resolve the Ellsberg paradox. We test our theory using laboratory experiments where subjects choose among lotteries that “range” from a simple risky lottery, through risky but more complex lotteries, to one similar to Ellsberg’s ambiguity urn. Our model ranks lotteries according to their complexity and makes different—at times contrasting—predictions than most models of ambiguity in response to manipulations of prizes. The results support that complexity aversion preferences play an important and separate role from beliefs with ambiguity aversion in explaining behavior under uncertainty.     

Measuring ambiguity attitude: (Extended) multiplier preferences for the American and the Dutch population

Empirical studies of ambiguity aversion often use measures that are not grounded in theory. This paper shows how a theoretically-founded measure of ambiguity aversion can be derived from Hansen and Sargent’s theory of multiplier preferences. Multiplier preferences are used in macroeconomics to capture model uncertainty. At the micro level, they have not been applied yet, because they do not permit ambiguity seeking, which is usually observed for a substantial proportion of subjects. We give a preference foundation for (extended) multiplier preferences accommodating both ambiguity aversion and ambiguity seeking and we propose a simple method to measure them using matching probabilities. We illustrate our method in two large representative samples (Dutch and American) and obtain the first micro estimates of multiplier preferences.     

How much ambiguity aversion?

Experimental results on the Ellsberg paradox typically reveal behavior that is commonly interpreted as ambiguity aversion. The experiments reported in the current paper find the objective probabilities for drawing a red ball that make subjects indifferent between various risky and uncertain Ellsberg bets. They allow us to examine the predictive power of alternative principles of choice under uncertainty, including the objective maximin and Hurwicz criteria, the sure-thing principle, and the principle of insufficient reason. Contrary to our expectations, the principle of insufficient reason performed substantially better than rival theories in our experiment, with ambiguity aversion appearing only as a secondary phenomenon.     

Uncertainty Aversion Vs. Competence: An Experimental Market Study

Heath and Tversky (1991, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 4:5–28) posed that reaction to ambiguity is driven by perceived competence. Competence effects may be inconsistent with ambiguity aversion if betting on own judgement is preferred to betting on a chance event, because judgemental probabilities are more ambiguous than chance events. This laboratory experiment analyses whether ambiguity affects prices and volumes in a double auction market, and contrasts ambiguity aversion to competence effects. In order to test for the presence of competence effects, in the experiment uncertainty is tied to the realisation of events about which the decision maker is more or less knowledgeable. Two experiments are presented: in the first, knowledge is exogenous, whereas in the second the knowledge judgement is endogenous. Market prices provide evidence in favour of the competence hypothesis only when competence is self-assessed. Comparable volumes are observed in both experiments.      

Updating Subjective Risks in the Presence of Conflicting Information: An Application to Climate Change

Willingness to support public programs for risk management often depends on individual subjective risk perceptions in the face of uncertain science. As part of a larger study concerning climate change, we explore individual updated subjective risks as a function of individual priors, the nature of external information, and individual attributes. We examine several rival hypotheses about how subjective risks change in the face of new information (Bayesian updating, alarmist learning, and ambiguity aversion). The source and nature of external information, as well as its collective ambiguity, can have varying effects across the population, in terms of both expectations and uncertainty.JEL Classification  D8, Q51, Q54     

The impact of risk aversion and ambiguity aversion on annuity and saving choices

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty - We analyze the impact of risk aversion and ambiguity aversion on the competing demands for annuities and bequeathable savings using a lifecycle recursive utility...     

Hopes and Fears: the Conflicting Effects of Risk Ambiguity

The Ellsberg Paradox documented the aversion to ambiguity in the probability of winning a prize. Using an original sample of 266 business owners and managers facing risks from climate change, this paper documents the presence of departures from rationality in both directions. Both ambiguity-seeking behavior and ambiguity-averse behavior are evident. People exhibit fear effects of ambiguity for small probabilities of suffering a loss and hope effects for large probabilities. Estimates of the crossover point from ambiguity aversion (fear) to ambiguity seeking (hope) place this value between 0.3 and 0.7 for the risk per decade lotteries considered, with empirical estimates indicating a crossover mean risk of about 0.5. Attitudes toward the degree of ambiguity also reverse at the crossover point.     

Do ambiguity avoidance and the comparative ignorance hypothesis depend on people’s affective reactions?

Previous work has showed that people are averse to ambiguity and prefer to bet on known probabilities over unknown probabilities. There is also evidence that ambiguity aversion is stronger in comparative contexts rather than in non-comparative contexts. In the present paper we suggest that ambiguity aversion depends on people’s affective reactions and therefore the effect is more evident in comparative contexts because the comparison between the clear and ambiguous alternatives leads to more positive affective reactions toward the former rather than the latter. The present study extends the previous findings while, at the same time, supporting the “comparative ignorance hypothesis”.     

Greater Downside Risk Aversion

Although investors are concerned foremost with mean and variance, they are also sensitive to downside risk. In this paper, we introduce an index of downside risk aversion to distinguish risk aversion from higher-order aspects of risk preference, including prudence. We show that the index of downside risk aversion S increases with monotonic downside risk averse transformations of utility, thereby directly linking S to the definition of downside risk aversion introduced by Menezes et al. (American Economic Review, 70, 921–932, 1980). Although the index S applies equally to risk averse and risk loving decision makers, for a given positive degree of risk aversion, S is greater when the index of prudence is greater and vice versa.     

Aggregating imprecise or conflicting beliefs: An experimental investigation using modern ambiguity theories

Two experiments show that violations of expected utility due to ambiguity, found in general decision experiments, also affect belief aggregation. Hence we use modern ambiguity theories to analyze belief aggregation, thus obtaining more refined and empirically more valid results than traditional theories can provide. We can now confirm more reliably that conflicting (heterogeneous) beliefs where some agents express certainty are processed differently than informationally equivalent imprecise homogeneous beliefs. We can also investigate new phenomena related to ambiguity. For instance, agents who express certainty receive extra weight (a cognitive effect related to ambiguity-generated insensitivity) and generate extra preference value (source preference; a motivational effect related to ambiguity aversion). Hence, incentive compatible belief elicitations that prevent manipulation are especially warranted when agents express certainty. For multiple prior theories of ambiguity, our findings imply that the same prior probabilities can be treated differently in different contexts, suggesting an interest of corresponding generalizations.     

Non-expected utility risk premiums: The cases of probability ambiguity and outcome uncertainty

This paper discusses two problems. (a) What happens to the conditional risk premium that a decision maker is willing to pay out of the middle prize in a lottery to avoid uncertainty concerning the middle prize outcome, when the probabilities of other prizes change? (b) What happens to the increase that a decision maker is willing to accept in the probability of an unpleasant outcome in order to avoid ambiguity concerning this probability, when this probability increases? We discuss both problems by using anticipated utility theory, and show that the same conditions on this functional predict behavioral patterns that are consistent both with a natural extension of the concept of diminishing risk aversion and with some experimental findings.