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.     

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.      

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.      

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.      

Is imprecise knowledge better than conflicting expertise? Evidence from insurers’ decisions in the United States

This paper reports the results of the first experiment in the United States designed to distinguish between two sources of ambiguity: imprecise ambiguity (expert groups agree on a range of probability, but not on any point estimate) versus conflict ambiguity (each expert group provides a precise probability estimate which differs from one group to another). The specific context is whether risk professionals (here, insurers) behave differently under risk (when probability is well-specified) and different types of ambiguity in pricing catastrophic risks (floods and hurricanes) and non-catastrophic risks (house fires). The data show that insurers charge higher premiums when faced with ambiguity than when the probability of a loss is well specified (risk). Furthermore, they tend to charge more for conflict ambiguity than imprecise ambiguity for flood and hurricane hazards, but less in the case of fire. The source of ambiguity also impacts causal inferences insurers make to reduce their uncertainty.     

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.     

Are the poor worse at dealing with ambiguity?

This paper studies the relationship between people’s ambiguity attitudes and income in the field using language as a natural source of ambiguity. It shows that the method of Baillon et al. (2017b) can be adapted for field studies, providing ambiguity measurement tasks that are more comprehensible for nonacademic subjects. Ambiguity attitudes were elicited in two groups of Chinese adolescents (poor rural and rich urban), among whom the income variation is big. In the rural group the poorer are both more ambiguity averse and more a-insensitive, whereas in the urban group the richer are more a-insensitivite. On average, the poor rural adolescents are worse at dealing with ambiguity than their urban counterparts. A-insensitivity, which measures people’s understanding of an ambiguous situation, is an important but sometimes neglected component of ambiguity attitude. Policies aiming to help people improve decisions may focus more on reducing a-insensitivity as this cognitive bias is more likely to be influenced by intervention than people’s intrinsic aversion towards ambiguity.     

Risk preferences of Australian academics: where retirement funds are invested tells the story

Risk preferences of Australian academics are elicited by analyzing the aggregate distribution of their retirement funds (superannuation) across available investment options. Not more than 10 % of retirement funds are invested as if their owners maximize expected utility under the assumption of constant relative risk aversion with an empirically plausible level of risk aversion. An implausibly high level of risk aversion is required to rationalize any investment into bonds when stocks are available. Not more than 36.54 % of all investments can be rationalized by a model of loss averse preferences. Moreover, the levels of loss aversion typically reported in the experimental studies imply overinvestment in bonds, which is not observed in the data. Up to 67.18 % of all investments can be rationalized by rank-dependent utility or Yaari’s (Econometrica 55:95–115 1987) dual model with empirically plausible parameters. A median Australian academic behaves as if maximizing rank-dependent utility with parameter \(\gamma \in [0.76, 0.79]\) in a Tversky and Kahneman (J Risk Uncertain 5:297–323 1992) probability weighting function.     

Risk behavior for gain,loss, and mixed prospects

This study extends experimental tests of (cumulative) prospect theory (PT) over prospects with more than three outcomes and tests second-order stochastic dominance principles (Levy and Levy, Management Science 48:1334–1349, 2002; Baucells and Heukamp, Management Science 52:1409–1423, 2006). It considers choice behavior of people facing prospects of three different types: gain prospects (losing is not possible), loss prospects (gaining is not possible), and mixed prospects (both gaining and losing are possible). The data supports the distinction of risk behavior into these three categories of prospects, Further, probability weighting and diminishing sensitivity of utility as predicted by PT are observed. Loss aversion is, however, less pronounced, except for choices where one prospect is degenerate. The data suggests that the probability of losing may be relevant for loss aversion.     

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.     

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.     

Intertemporal utility smoothing under uncertainty

This paper axiomatizes a recursive utility model that captures both intertemporal utility smoothing defined across time and ambiguity aversion defined over states. The resulting representation adapts Wakai (Econometrica 76:137–153, 2008) model of intertemporal utility smoothing as an aggregator function, where the utility of the certainty equivalent of future uncertainty is computed by Gilboa and Schmeidler (J Math Econ 18:141–153, 1989) multiple-priors utility. The model also permits the separation of intertemporal utility smoothing from ambiguity aversion.     

Understanding Ambiguous Loss in the Context of Dementia Care

Abstract

This study examined the experience of ambiguous loss for family members caring for a person with dementia living in a long-term care facility. Data for this study came from in-depth, active interviews conducted with 38 adult daughters and 23 adult sons caring for a parent with dementia living in a long-term care facility. The stories shared by the adult children revealed that ambiguous loss in the dementia context involves a long, on-going process of several phases including anticipatory loss, progressive loss and acknowledged loss. The nature of the ambiguity shifts and the experience changes for families as they journey through the ambiguous loss process. Acceptance and avoidance were the two most common coping strategies used in dealing with acknowledged loss.     

Ambiguity framed

In his exposition of subjective expected utility theory, Savage (1954) proposed that the Allais paradox could be reduced if it were recast into a format which made the appeal of the independence axiom of expected utility theory more transparent. Recent studies consistently find support for this prediction. We consider a salience-based choice model which explains this frame-dependence of the Allais paradox. We then derive the novel prediction that the presentation format responsible for reductions in Allais-style violations of expected utility theory will also reduce Ellsberg-style violations of subjective expected utility theory. This format makes the appeal of Savage’s “sure thing principle” more transparent. We design an experiment to test this prediction and find strong support for such frame-dependence of ambiguity aversion in Ellsberg-style choices. In particular, we observe markedly less ambiguity-averse behavior in Savage’s matrix format than in a more standard “prospect” format. This finding poses a new challenge for the leading models of ambiguity aversion.     

On the definition of risk aversion

Two definitions of risk aversion have recently been proposed for non-expected utility theories of choice under uncertainty: the former refers the measure of risk aversion (Montesano 1985, 1986 and 1988) directly to the risk premium (i.e. to the difference between the expected value of the action under consideration and its certainty equivalent); the latter defines risk aversion as a decreasing preference for an increasing risk (introduced as mean preserving spreads) (Chew, Karni and Safra 1987, Machina 1987, Röell 1987, Yaari 1987).When the von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function exists both these definitions indicate an agent as a risk averter if his or her utility function is concave. Consequently, the two definitions are equivalent. However, they are no longer equivalent when the von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function does not exist and a non-expected utility theory is assumed. Examples can be given which show how the risk aversion of the one definition can coexist with the risk attraction of the other. Indeed the two definitions consider two different questions: the risk premium definition specifically concerns risk aversion, while the mean preserving spreads definition concerns the increasing (with risk) risk aversion.The mean preserving spreads definition of risk aversion, i.e. the increasing (with risk) risk aversion, requires a special kind of concavity for the preference function (that the derivatives with respect to probabilities are concave in the respective consequences). The risk premium definition of local risk aversion requires that the probability distribution dominates on the average the distribution of the derivatives of the preference function with respect to consequences. Besides, when the local measure of the first order is zero, there is risk aversion according to the measure of the second order if the preference function is concave with respect to consequences.Yaari's (1969) measure of risk aversion is closely linked to the r.p. measure of the second order. Its sign does not indicate risk aversion (if positive) or attraction (if negative) when the measure of the first order is not zero (i.e., in Yaari's language, when subjective odds differ from the market odds).     

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     

Mean utility preserving increases in risk for state dependent utility functions

This paper defines the concept of a mean utility preserving spread across states (MUPSAS) for state dependent utility functions and analyzes the behavioural impact of shifts in the probability distribution of wealth across states such that overall mean utility is preserved. The main result provides an alternative way of ranking state dependent utility functions according to their degree of risk aversion (thus extending Kami's theorem of comparative risk aversion) and establishes a link between increases in risk and risk aversion for state dependent preferences. In a portfolio problem where preferences and the rate of return of the risky venture are state dependent, we find sufficient conditions to determine the impact of a MUPSAS on the optimal share of the portfolio invested in the risky asset.

---

     

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.     

An Experimental Test of Loss Aversion

This paper experimentally investigates a preference condition for loss aversion in the framework of cumulative prospect theory (CPT). We propose the concepts of absolute and relative loss premiums in order to measure the extent of loss aversion and to derive notions of increasing, constant, and decreasing loss aversion. While in only one of the 28 choice situations analyzed loss neutrality and loss seeking can be rejected, about 51% of all choices are loss averse and, due to the large extent of loss aversion revealed by these choices, the average loss premium is positive for most choice situations. Female subjects exhibit both a more frequent occurrence and a larger extent of loss aversion.     

A foundation of Bayesian statistics (How to deal with fears)

A rational statistical decision maker whose preferences satisfy Savage's axioms will minimize a Bayesian risk function: the expectation with respect to a revealed (or subjective) probability distribution of a loss (or negative utility) function over the consequences of the statistical decision problem. However, the nice expected utility form of the Bayesian risk criterion is nothing but a representation of special preferences. The subjective probability is defined together with the utility (or loss) function and it is not possible, in general, to use a given loss function - say a quadratic loss - and to elicit independently a subjective distribution.I construct the Bayesian risk criterion with a set of five axioms, each with a simple mathematical implication. This construction clearly shows that the subjective probability that is revealed by a decider's preferences is nothing but a (Radon) measure equivalent to a linear functional (the criterion). The functions on which the criterion operates are expected utilities in the von Neumann-Morgenstern sense. It then becomes clear that the subjective distribution cannot be eliciteda priori, independently of the utility function on consequences.However, if one considers a statistical decision problem by itself, losses, defined by a given loss function, become the consequences of the decisions. It can be imagined that experienced statisticians are used to dealing with different losses and are able to compare them (i.e. have preferences, or fears over a set of possible losses). Using suitable axioms over these preferences, one can represent them by a (linear) criterion: this criterion is the expectation of losses with respect to a (revealed) distribution. It must be noted that such a distribution is a measure and need not be a probability distribution.