The Network for Integrated Behavioural Science  
University of Nottingham
  • Print
  

Summary

During recent decades, many new models have emerged in pure and applied economic theory according to which agents’ choices may be sensitive to ambiguity in the uncertainty that faces them. The exchange between Epstein (2010) and Klibanoff et al. (2012) identified a notable behavioral issue that distinguishes sharply between two classes of models of ambiguity sensitivity that are importantly different. The two classes are exemplified by the α-maxmin expected utility (MEU) model and the smooth ambiguity model, respectively; and the issue is whether or not a desire to hedge independently resolving ambiguities contributes to an ambiguity-averse agent's preference for a randomized act. Building on this insight, we implement an experiment whose design provides a qualitative test that discriminates between the two classes of models. Among subjects identified as ambiguity sensitive, we find greater support for the class exemplified by the smooth ambiguity model; the relative support is stronger among subjects identified as ambiguity averse. This finding has implications for applications that rely on specific models of ambiguity preference.

Details: Journal of the European Economic Association. April 2019

Authors:   Robin Cubitt, Gijs van de Kuilen, and Sujoy Mukerji

 

 

Posted on Tuesday 21st May 2019

NIBS - Network for Integrated Behavioural Science

Sir Clive Granger Building
School of Economics
The University of Nottingham
University Park
Nottingham NG7 2RD

telephone: +44 (0)115 951 4763
fax: +44 (0)115 951 4159
email: suzanne.robey@nottingham.ac.uk