IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jetheo/v165y2016icp124-151.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A theory of robust experiments for choice under uncertainty

Author

Listed:
  • Grant, S.
  • Kline, J.
  • Meneghel, I.
  • Quiggin, J.
  • Tourky, R.

Abstract

Thought experiments are commonly used in the theory of behavior in the presence of risk and uncertainty to test the plausibility of proposed axiomatic postulates. The prototypical examples of the former are the Allais experiments and of the latter are the Ellsberg experiments. Although the lotteries from the former have objectively specified probabilities, the participants in both kinds of experiments may be susceptible to small deviations in their subjective beliefs. These may result from a variety of factors that are difficult to check in an experimental setting: including deviations in the understanding and trust regarding the experiment, its instructions and its method. Intuitively, an experiment is robust if it is tolerant to small deviations in subjective beliefs in models that are in an appropriate way close to the analyst's model. The contribution of this paper lies in the formalization of these ideas.

Suggested Citation

  • Grant, S. & Kline, J. & Meneghel, I. & Quiggin, J. & Tourky, R., 2016. "A theory of robust experiments for choice under uncertainty," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 124-151.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jetheo:v:165:y:2016:i:c:p:124-151
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jet.2016.04.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022053116300333
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jet.2016.04.013?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Smith, Vernon L, 1982. "Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(5), pages 923-955, December.
    2. Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon & Kelsey, David, 2007. "Updating Choquet beliefs," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(7-8), pages 888-899, September.
    3. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    4. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    5. Mark J. Machina, 2009. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Rank-Dependence Axioms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(1), pages 385-392, March.
    6. Ken Binmore & Lisa Stewart & Alex Voorhoeve, 2012. "How much ambiguity aversion?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 215-238, December.
    7. Howard Raiffa, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms: Comment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 690-694.
    8. Yoram Halevy, 2007. "Ellsberg Revisited: An Experimental Study," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(2), pages 503-536, March.
    9. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    10. Harrison, Glenn W, 1994. "Expected Utility Theory and the Experimentalists," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 223-253.
    11. Holt, Charles A, 1986. "Preference Reversals and the Independence Axiom," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(3), pages 508-515, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christopher P. Chambers & Federico Echenique & Nicolas S. Lambert, 2021. "Recovering Preferences From Finite Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(4), pages 1633-1664, July.
    2. Han Bleichrodt & Jurgen Eichberger & Simon Grant & David Kelsey & Chen Li, 2018. "A Test of Dynamic Consistency and Consequentialism in the Presence of Ambiguity," Discussion Papers 1803, University of Exeter, Department of Economics.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Florian H. Schneider & Martin Schonger, 2019. "An Experimental Test of the Anscombe–Aumann Monotonicity Axiom," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(4), pages 1667-1677, April.
    2. Adam Dominiak & Wendelin Schnedler, 2011. "Attitudes toward uncertainty and randomization: an experimental study," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 48(2), pages 289-312, October.
    3. Laurent Denant-Boemont & Olivier L’Haridon, 2013. "La rationalité à l'épreuve de l'économie comportementale," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(2), pages 35-89.
    4. Schnedler, Wendelin & Dominiak, Adam, 2008. "Uncertainty Aversion and Preference for Randomization," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 08-39, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    5. Christoph Kuzmics & Brian W. Rogers & Xiannong Zhang, 2024. "Randomization advice and ambiguity aversion," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 69(1), pages 85-104, August.
    6. Giuseppe Attanasi & Aldo Montesano, 2012. "The price for information about probabilities and its relation with risk and ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(1), pages 125-160, July.
    7. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Peter Klibanoff & Lætitia Placido, 2015. "Experiments on Compound Risk in Relation to Simple Risk and to Ambiguity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1306-1322, June.
    8. Junyi Chai & Zhiquan Weng & Wenbin Liu, 2021. "Behavioral Decision Making in Normative and Descriptive Views: A Critical Review of Literature," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-14, October.
    9. Robin Cubitt & Gijs van de Kuilen & Sujoy Mukerji, 2020. "Discriminating Between Models of Ambiguity Attitude: a Qualitative Test," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(2), pages 708-749.
    10. Aurélien Baillon & Yoram Halevy & Chen Li, 2022. "Experimental elicitation of ambiguity attitude using the random incentive system," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(3), pages 1002-1023, June.
    11. Kuzmics, Christoph, 2017. "Abraham Wald's complete class theorem and Knightian uncertainty," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 666-673.
    12. Ilke Aydogan & Loïc Berger & Valentina Bosetti & Ning Liu, 2023. "Three Layers of Uncertainty," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 21(5), pages 2209-2236.
    13. Evren, Özgür, 2019. "Recursive non-expected utility: Connecting ambiguity attitudes to risk preferences and the level of ambiguity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 285-307.
    14. Ken Binmore, 2017. "On the Foundations of Decision Theory," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 259-273, December.
    15. Xiangyu Qu, 2015. "Purely subjective extended Bayesian models with Knightian unambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 547-571, December.
    16. Oechssler, Jörg & Roomets, Alex, 2015. "A test of mechanical ambiguity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 153-162.
    17. Han Bleichrodt & Jurgen Eichberger & Simon Grant & David Kelsey & Chen Li, 2018. "A Test of Dynamic Consistency and Consequentialism in the Presence of Ambiguity," Discussion Papers 1803, University of Exeter, Department of Economics.
    18. repec:clg:wpaper:2013-27 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. König-Kersting, Christian & Kops, Christopher & Trautmann, Stefan T., 2023. "A test of (weak) certainty independence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    20. Christoph Kuzmics & Brian W. Rogers & Xiannong Zhang, 2019. "Is Ellsberg behavior evidence of ambiguity aversion?," Graz Economics Papers 2019-07, University of Graz, Department of Economics.
    21. Marc Willinger, 1990. "La rénovation des fondements de l'utilité et du risque," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 41(1), pages 5-48.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Choice experiments; Robust tests; Non-expected utility; Generalized mean utility;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jetheo:v:165:y:2016:i:c:p:124-151. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622869 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.