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.     

Recursive expected utility and the separation of attitudes towards risk and ambiguity: an experimental study

We use the multiple price list method and a recursive expected utility theory of smooth ambiguity to separate out attitude towards risk from that towards ambiguity. Based on this separation, we investigate if there are differences in agent behaviour under uncertainty over gain amounts vis-a-vis uncertainty over loss amounts. On an aggregate level, we find that (i) subjects are risk averse over gains and risk seeking over losses, displaying a “reflection effect” and (ii) they are ambiguity neutral over gains and are mildly ambiguity seeking over losses. Further analysis shows that on an individual level, and with respect to both risky and ambiguous prospects, there is limited incidence of a reflection effect where subjects are risk/ambiguity averse (seeking) in gains and seeking (averse) in losses, though this incidence is higher for ambiguous prospects. A very high proportion of such cases of reflection exhibit risk (ambiguity) aversion in gains and risk (ambiguity) seeking in losses, with the reverse effect being significantly present in the case of risk but almost absent in case of ambiguity. Our results suggest that reflection across gains and losses is not a stable individual characteristic, but depends upon whether the form of uncertainty is precise or ambiguous, since we rarely find an individual who exhibits reflection in both risky and ambiguous prospects. We also find that correlations between attitudes towards risk and ambiguity were domain dependent.      

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.     

Uncertainty with Partial Information on the Possibility of the Events

The Choquet expected utility model deals with nonadditive probabilities (or capacities). Their dependence on the information the decision-maker has about the possibility of the events is taken into account. Two kinds of information are examined: interval information (for instance, the percentage of white balls in an urn is between 60% and 100%) and comparative information (for instance, the information that there are more white balls than black ones). Some implications are shown with regard to the core of the capacity and to two additive measures which can be derived from capacities: the Shapley value and the nucleolus. Interval information bounds prove to be satisfied by all probabilities in the core, but they are not necessarily satisfied by the nucleolus (when the core is empty) and the Shapley value. We must introduce the constrained nucleolus in order for these bounds to be satisfied, while the Shapley value does not seem to be adjustable. On the contrary, comparative information inequalities prove to be not necessarily satisfied by all probabilities in the core and we must introduce the constrained core in order for these inequalities be satisfied. However, both the nucleolus and the Shapley value satisfy the comparative information inequalities, and the Shapley value does it more strictly than the nucleolus. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Ambiguity aversion under maximum-likelihood updating

Maximum-likelihood updating (MLU) is a well-known approach for extending static ambiguity sensitive preferences to dynamic set-ups. This paper develops an example in which MLU induces an ambiguity averse maxmin expected utility (MEU) decision-maker to (1) prefer a bet on an ambiguous over a risky urn and (2) be more willing to bet on the ambiguous urn compared to an (ambiguity neutral) subjective expected utility (SEU) decision-maker. This is challenging, since prior to observing (symmetric) draws from the urns, the MEU decision-maker (in line with the usual notion of ambiguity aversion) actually preferred the risky over the ambiguous bet and was less willing to bet on the ambiguous urn than the SEU decision-maker. The identified switch in betting preferences is not due to a violation of dynamic consistency or consequentialism. Rather, it results from MLU’s selection of extreme priors, causing a violation of the stability of set inclusion over the course of the updating process.     

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.     

Asymmetric Choquet random walks and ambiguity aversion or seeking

Asymmetric Choquet random walks are defined, in the form of dynamically consistent random walks allowing for asymmetric conditional capacities. By revisiting Kast and Lapied (Dynamically consistent Choquet random walk and real investments. Document de Travail n. 2010-33, GREQAM, HAL id: halhs-00533826, 2010b) and Kast et al. (Econ Model, 38:495–503, 2014) we show that some findings regarding the effects of ambiguity aversion are preserved in the more general framework, which is of interest in several applications to policy making, risk management, corporate decisions, real option valuation of investment/ disinvestment projects, etc. The effect of ambiguity on the higher moments is investigated, as well, as they have an interpretation in terms of the psychological attitude of a decision-maker towards ambiguity. Finally, some financial applications are provided as an illustration.     

Subjectively weighted linear utility

An axiomatized theory of nonlinear utility and subjective probability is presented in which assessed probabilities are allowed to depend on the consequences associated with events. The representation includes the expected utility model as a special case, but can accommodate the Ellsberg paradox and other types of ambiguity sensitive behavior, while retaining familiar properties of subjective probability, such as additivity for disjoint events and multiplication of conditional probabilities. It is an extension, to the states model of decision making under uncertainty, of Chew's weighted linear utility representation for decision making under risk.     

Experimental markets for insurance

This article extends the large amount of research on double-oral auction markets to hazards that produce only losses. We report results from a series of experiments in which subjects endowed with low-probability losses can pay a premium for insurance protection. Insurers specify the price at which they are willing to assume the risk of a loss. Insurance prices approach expected value for a large range of probabilities and loss amounts. Subjects seem to realize losses are statistically independent. Prices are not affected by ambiguity about the 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     

What makes children defy their peers? Chinese and Spanish preschoolers' decisions to trust (or not) peer consensus

The more people agree on the same piece of information, the more likely are individuals to endorse the testimonial information. Children are sensitive to consensus but their trust in what a majority says also depends on the decision context, their previous knowledge, and, interestingly, the culture in which they develop. Here we study Chinese (N = 60) and Spanish (N = 48) preschoolers' sensitivity to the opinion of a group of peers in consensus regarding (a) peer interaction events and (b) use of artifacts. For each context, we varied the degree of ambiguity of the situations: unfamiliar, ambiguous, and familiar, where the majority offered a transgressive opinion in conflict with “common sense.” Children were more likely to trust their peers in the unfamiliar and ambiguous situations. In the familiar situations, children showed greater acceptance of transgressive claims regarding artifacts than peer interaction events. The two cultural groups, however, significantly differed in the degree of endorsement. Although Chinese children gave little credibility to their peers even when facing novel information, Spaniards deferred to them, even at the expense of their own criteria. Together with previous findings, these results indicate culture‐specific patterns related to children's attitudes toward peers versus adults as sources of knowledge.     

Prospect theory and the “forgotten” fourfold pattern of risk preferences

Markowitz (Journal of Political Economy 60:151–158, 1952) identified a fourfold pattern of risk preferences in outcome magnitude: When outcomes are large, people are risk averse in gains and risk seeking in losses, but risk preferences reverse when the outcomes are small, with people exhibiting risk seeking in gains and risk aversion in losses. This fourfold pattern was not addressed by either version of prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky Econometrica 47:363–391, 1979; Tversky and Kahneman Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5:297–323, 1992). We show how prospect theory can accommodate the pattern by combining an overweighting of low probabilities with a decreasingly elastic value function. We then examine the performance of prospect theory with two decreasingly elastic value functions: Prospect theory performs better, both quantitatively and qualitatively, with a normalized logarithmic value function than with a normalized exponential value function. We discuss several issues, and speculate about why Tversky and Kahneman did not address Markowitz’s fourfold pattern.     

Does time inconsistency differ between gain and loss? An intra-personal comparison using a non-parametric elicitation method

Several studies on time preference have found time inconsistency in both gain and loss preferences. However, the relationship between the two within the same person remains unclear; that is, does an individual who demonstrates time inconsistency for gain outcomes do so for losses as well? This paper reports on individuals’ time inconsistency for gains and losses in a laboratory setting. To obtain a precise comparison of individuals’ time inconsistency for gains and losses, we used Rohde’s “DI (decreasing impatience)-index” (Manag Sci 65(4):1700–1716, 2018) and measured the level of time inconsistency, rather than merely identifying whether TI was present. This index represents how strongly a person exhibits present bias, and easily extends to the comparison between gain and loss preferences within the same person. Further, it allows the experiment to test for so-called future bias, which has been a focus area in recent time inconsistency literature. It is elicited through a non-parametric method, which avoids any specification errors in the analysis. Our findings are as follows: first, we found future bias in preferences for not only gains but also losses, and we confirmed that this tendency is consistent with previous findings on preferences for gains. Second, a positive correlation between time inconsistency for gains and losses was found at the individual level. Indeed, we could not find a significant difference between the two in most cases.

     

Effects of Outcome and Probabilistic Ambiguity on Managerial Choices

Information ambiguity is prevalent in organizations and likely influences management decisions. This study examines, given imprecise probabilities and outcomes, how managers make choices when they are provided with single-figure benchmarks. Seventy-nine MBA students completed two experiments. We found that, in a decision framed as a decision under certainty involving an ambiguous outcome, the majority of the subjects were ambiguity prone in the loss condition and switched to ambiguity aversion in the gain condition. However, in the presence of probabilistic ambiguity in a decision under risk, this expected switching pattern was shown only when the difference in riskiness between the two choice options (in the loss condition) was perceived to be relatively small. In a companion study, we used a written protocol approach to identify factors that affect decision makers' investment choices when faced with ambiguous outcomes. Protocols frequently mentioned that the ambiguous outcome option was risky, even in the case which was framed as a decision under certainty in the problem statement. In a decision under risk with ambiguous outcomes, the combination of probabilistic risk and outcome ambiguity was seen as even more risky.     

The Diversification Theorem Restated: Risk-pooling Without Assignment of Probabilities

Bayesian decision theory assumes that agents making choices assign subjective probabilities to outcomes, even in cases where information on probabilities is obviously absent. Here we show that agents that presume that they are equal risks can share risks mutually beneficially, even if the probabilities of losses are unpredictable or genuinely uncertain. We show also that different risk aversions among pool members do not exclude mutually beneficial loss sharing at uncertainty. Sharing when individuals’ losses differ in probabilities or in amount may still make individuals better off. Our findings are related to the theory of the insurance firm, to the management of development risks, and to the theory of justice.JEL Classification: D8, G22, L10, L30     

It is Whether You Win or Lose: The Importance of the Overall Probabilities of Winning or Losing in Risky Choice

Imagine that you own a five-outcome gamble with the following payoffs and probabilities: ($100, .20; $50, .20; Imagine that you own a five-outcome gamble with the following payoffs and probabilities: ($100, .20; $50, .20; $0, .20; –$25, .20; –$50, .20). What happens when the opportunity to improve such a gamble is provided by a manipulation that adds value to one outcome versus another outcome, particularly when the opportunity to add value to one outcome versus another outcome changes the overall probability of a gain or the overall probability of a loss? Such a choice provides a simple test of the expected utility model (EU), original prospect theory (OPT), and cumulative prospect theory (CPT). A study of risky choices involving 375 respondents indicates that respondents were most sensitive to changes in outcome values that either increased the overall probability of a strict gain or decreased the overall probability of a strict loss. These results indicate more support for OPT rather than CPT and EU under various assumptions about the shape of the utility and value and weighting functions. Most importantly, the main difference between the various expectation models of risky choice occurs for outcomes near the reference value. A second study of risky choice involving 151 respondents again demonstrated the sensitivity of subjects to reducing the probability of a strict loss even at the cost of reduced expected value. Consequently, we argue that theories of how people choose among gambles that involve three or more consequences with both gains and losses need to include measures of the overall probabilities of a gain and of a loss.JEL Classification  D81     

Loss Averse Behavior

A behavioral condition of loss aversion is proposed and tested. Forty-nine students participated in experiments on binary choices among lotteries involving small scale real gains and losses. At the aggregate level, a significant proportion of the choices are in the direction predicted by loss aversion. Individuals can be classified as loss averse (28 participants), gain seeking (12), and unclassified (9). A comparison with risk behavior for binary choices on lotteries involving only gains shows that risk attitudes vary across these domains of lotteries. A gender effect is also observed: proportionally more women are loss averse. In contrast to the predictions of comonotonic independence, the size of common outcomes has systematic influence on choice behavior. JEL Classification: D81, C91     

Rationality on the rise: Why relative risk aversion increases with stake size

How does risk tolerance vary with stake size? This important question cannot be adequately answered if framing effects, nonlinear probability weighting, and heterogeneity of preference types are neglected. We show that the observed increase in relative risk aversion over gains cannot be captured by the curvature of the value function. Rather, it is predominantly driven by a change in probability weighting of a majority group of individuals who weight probabilities of high gains more conservatively. Contrary to gains, no coherent change in relative risk aversion is observed for losses. These results not only challenge expected utility theory, but also prospect theory.