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”.     

Subjective beliefs and confidence when facts are forgotten

Forgetting can be a salient source of uncertainty for subjective beliefs, confidence, and ambiguity attitudes. To investigate this, we run several experiments where people bet on propositions (facts) that they cannot recall with certainty. We use betting preferences to infer subjects’ revealed beliefs and their revealed confidence in these beliefs. Forgetting is induced via interference tasks and time delays (up to one year). We observe a natural memory decay pattern where beliefs become less accurate and confidence is reduced as well. Moreover, we find a form of comparative ignorance where subjects are more ambiguity averse when they cannot recall the truth rather than never having learnt it. In a different vein, we identify an overconfidence pattern: on average, subjects overpay for bets on propositions that they believe in, but underpay for the opposite bets. We formulate a two-signal behavioral model of forgetting that generates all of these patterns. It suggests new testable hypotheses that are confirmed by our data.

     

A gene–brain–behavior basis for familiarity bias in source preference

Theory and Decision - Source preference in which equally distributed risks may be valued differently has been receiving increasing attention. Using subjects recruited in Berkeley, Fox and Tversky...     

Preference and belief: Ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty

We investigate the relation between judgments of probability and preferences between bets. A series of experiments provides support for the competence hypothesis that people prefer betting on their own judgment over an equiprobable chance event when they consider themselves knowledgeable, but not otherwise. They even pay a significant premium to bet on their judgments. These data connot be explained by aversion to ambiguity, because judgmental probabilities are more ambiguous than chance events. We interpret the results in terms of the attribution of credit and blame. The possibility of inferring beliefs from preferences is questioned.¹     

Economic Darwinism: Who has the Best Probabilities?

Simulation evidence obtained within a Bayesian model of price-setting in a betting market, where anonymous gamblers queue to bet against a risk-neutral bookmaker, suggests that a gambler who wants to maximize future profits should trade on the advice of the analyst cum probability forecaster who records the best probability score, rather than the highest trading profits, during the preceding observation period. In general, probability scoring rules, specifically the log score and better known “Brier” (quadratic) score, are found to have higher probability of ranking rival analysts in predetermined “correct” order than either (i) the more usual method of counting categorical forecast errors (misclassifications), or (ii) an economic measure of forecasting success, described here as the “Kelly score” and defined as the trading profits accumulated by making log optimal bets (i.e. Kelly betting) against the market maker based on the probability forecasts of the analyst being assessed. This runs counter to the conventional wisdom that financial forecasts are more aptly evaluated in terms of their financial consequences than by an abstract non-monetary measure of statistical accuracy such as the number of misclassifications or a probability score.      

Sampling experience reverses preferences for ambiguity

People often need to choose between alternatives with known probabilities (risk) and alternatives with unknown probabilities (ambiguity). Such decisions are characterized by attitudes towards ambiguity, which are distinct from risk attitudes. Most studies of ambiguity attitudes have focused on the static case of single choice, where decision makers typically prefer risky over ambiguous prospects. However, in many situations, decision makers may be able to sample outcomes of an ambiguous alternative, allowing for inferences about its probabilities. The current paper finds that such sampling experience reverses the pattern of ambiguity attitude observed in the static case. This effect can only partly be explained by the updating of probabilistic beliefs, suggesting a direct effect of sampling on attitudes toward ambiguity.     

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

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.

     

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.      

The axioms and algebra of ambiguity

This paper continues a study of event ambiguity as a primitive concept. Axioms are described for a comparative ambiguity relation on an arbitrary event set that are necessary and sufficient for a representation of the relation by a functional that is nonnegative, vanishes at the empty event, and satisfies complementary equality and submodularity. Uniqueness characteristics of representing functionals are discussed. The theory is extended to multifactor events, where marginal ambiguity and additive representations arise.     

Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity

In subjective expected utility (SEU), the decision weights people attach to events are their beliefs about the likelihood of events. Much empirical evidence, inspired by Ellsberg (1961) and others, shows that people prefer to bet on events they know more about, even when their beliefs are held constant. (They are averse to ambiguity, or uncertainty about probability.) We review evidence, recent theoretical explanations, and applications of research on ambiguity and SEU.Thanks to Jonathan Baron, James Dow, Peter Fishburn, Itzhak Gilboa, Gordon Hazen, Howard Kunreuther, Tomas Phillipson, David Schmeidler, Amos Tversky, the editor, and several anonymous referees for corrections and helpful comments. Camerer's contribution to this work was supported by the National Science Foundation, grant no. SES 88-09299. Weber's contribution was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsge-meinschaft, grant no. WE 993/5-1.     

Known, Unknown, and Unknowable Uncertainties

In normative decision theory, the weight of an uncertain event in a decision is governed solely by the probability of the event. A large body of empirical research suggests that a single notion of probability does not accurately capture peoples' reactions to uncertainty. As early as the 1920s, Knight made the distinction between cases where probabilities are known and where probabilities are unknown. We distinguish another case –- the unknowable uncertainty –- where the missing information is unavailable to all. We propose that missing information influences the attractiveness of a bet contingent upon an uncertain event, especially when the information is available to someone else. We demonstrate that the unknowable uncertainty –- falls in preference somewhere in between the known and the known uncertainty.     

Testing Prospect Theories Using Probability Tradeoff Consistency

The two versions of prospect theory, original prospect theory (OPT; Kahneman and Tversky, 1979) and cumulative prospect theory (CPT; Tversky and Kahneman, 1992), use different composition rules to combine the value function and the probability weighting function and hence value gambles with two or more non-zero outcomes differently. Previous tests of OPT and CPT have yielded mixed results, with some investigations supporting OPT and some supporting CPT. We extend the probability tradeoff consistency axiom used in Abdellaoui (2002) for CPT to OPT, and develop a critical test of the two prospect theories based on their respective probability tradeoff consistency conditions. An empirical investigation of the critical test shows that choices are consistent with OPT, but not CPT, for gambles that do not involve a certainty effect, and consistent with both CPT and OPT for gambles that do involve a certainty effect, provided that an editing operation is invoked for OPT.     

Judged knowledge and ambiguity aversion

Competence has recently been proposed as an explanation for the degree of ambiguity aversion. Using general knowledge questions we presented subjects with simple lotteries in which they could bet on an event and against the same event. We show that the sum of certainty equivalents for both bets depends on the judged knowledge of the class of events. We also elicited the decision weights for events and complementary events. We found a similar effect of knowledge on the sum of decision weights.     

Reporting probabilistic expectations with dynamic uncertainty about possible distributions

We study how experimental subjects report subjective probability distributions in the presence of ambiguity characterized by uncertainty over a fixed set of possible probability distributions generating future outcomes. Subjects observe draws from the true but unknown probability distribution generating outcomes at the beginning of each period of the experiment and state at selected periods a) the likelihoods that each probability distribution in the set is the true distribution, and b) the likelihoods of future outcomes. We estimate heterogeneity of rules used to update uncertainty about the true distribution and rules used to report distributions of future outcomes. We find that approximately 65% of subjects report distributions by properly weighing the possible distributions using their expressed uncertainty over them, while 22% of subjects report distributions close to the distribution they perceive as most likely. We find significant heterogeneity in how subjects update their expressed uncertainty. On average, subjects tend to overweigh the importance of their prior uncertainty relative to new information, leading to ambiguity that is substantially more persistent than would be predicted using Bayes’ rule. Counterfactual simulations suggest that this persistence will likely hold in settings not covered by our experiment.     

The strength of sensitivity to ambiguity

We report an experiment where each subject’s ambiguity sensitivity is measured by an ambiguity premium, a concept analogous to and comparable with a risk premium. In our design, some tasks feature known objective risks and others uncertainty about which subjects have imperfect, heterogeneous, information (“ambiguous tasks”). We show how the smooth ambiguity model can be used to calculate ambiguity premia. A distinctive feature of our approach is estimation of each subject’s subjective beliefs about the uncertainty in ambiguous tasks. We find considerable heterogeneity among subjects in beliefs and ambiguity premia; and that, on average, ambiguity sensitivity is about as strong as risk sensitivity.     

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.     

Stake effects on ambiguity attitudes for gains and losses

We test the effect of stake size on ambiguity attitudes. Compared to a baseline condition, we find subjects to be more ambiguity seeking for small-probability gains and large-probability losses under high stakes. They are also more ambiguity averse for large-probability gains and small-probability losses. We trace these effects back to stake effects on decisions under risk (known probabilities) and uncertainty (unknown probabilities). For risk, we replicate previous findings. For uncertainty, we find an increase in probabilistic insensitivity under high stakes that is driven by increased uncertainty aversion for large-probability gains and for small-probability losses.     

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.