IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jadmsc/v12y2022i3p108-d898408.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Costs of Ambiguity in Strategic Contexts

Author

Listed:
  • Richard J. Arend

    (School of Business, University of Southern Maine, Portland, ME 04104, USA)

Abstract

With this research, we contribute to the study of ambiguity by analyzing how it can be handled in a rational, objective manner across the main strategic decision-making contexts that entrepreneurs and organizations face. Differentiating from most previous managerial and entrepreneurial studies, we conduct the analysis from a mathematical rather than an experimental approach, doing so by considering variants of a robust, yet simple, decision problem. Significantly, the analysis offers a simple model and approach to consider as benchmarks when assessing the impact of an ambiguity level of information against cases where more precise information is available. We identify the many costs of ambiguity, including direct absolute and relative maximum harms, as well as indirect possible penalties. We discuss the strategic entrepreneurial and managerial implications.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard J. Arend, 2022. "The Costs of Ambiguity in Strategic Contexts," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-19, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:12:y:2022:i:3:p:108-:d:898408
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/12/3/108/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/12/3/108/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robin M. Hogarth & Hillel J. Einhorn, 1990. "Venture Theory: A Model of Decision Weights," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(7), pages 780-803, July.
    2. Kuechle Graciela & Béatrice Boulu-Reshef & Sean D. Carr, 2016. "Prediction- and Control-Based Strategies in Entrepreneurship: The Role of Information," Post-Print hal-01296948, HAL.
    3. Richard J. Arend, 2020. "Strategic decision-making under ambiguity: a new problem space and a proposed optimization approach," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(3), pages 1231-1251, November.
    4. Ghirardato, Paolo & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2004. "Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 133-173, October.
    5. Mark J. Machina, 2014. "Ambiguity Aversion with Three or More Outcomes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(12), pages 3814-3840, December.
    6. 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.
    7. Peter Klibanoff & Massimo Marinacci & Sujoy Mukerji, 2005. "A Smooth Model of Decision Making under Ambiguity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(6), pages 1849-1892, November.
    8. Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & Aldo Rustichini, 2006. "Ambiguity Aversion, Robustness, and the Variational Representation of Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(6), pages 1447-1498, November.
    9. Cerreia-Vioglio, Simone & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo & Montrucchio, Luigi, 2013. "Ambiguity and robust statistics," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(3), pages 974-1049.
      • Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & Luigi Montrucchio, 2011. "Ambiguity and Robust Statistics," Working Papers 382, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    10. Christian Gollier, 2014. "Optimal insurance design of ambiguous risks," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 57(3), pages 555-576, November.
    11. Henry Mintzberg, 1978. "Patterns in Strategy Formation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(9), pages 934-948, May.
    12. Einhorn, Hillel J & Hogarth, Robin M, 1986. "Decision Making under Ambiguity," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 225-250, October.
    13. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    14. Dimo Dimov, 2010. "Nascent Entrepreneurs and Venture Emergence: Opportunity Confidence, Human Capital, and Early Planning," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(6), pages 1123-1153, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Christoph Bühren & Fabian Meier & Marco Pleßner, 2023. "Ambiguity aversion: bibliometric analysis and literature review of the last 60 years," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 495-525, June.
    2. Peter Klibanoff & Sujoy Mukerji & Kyoungwon Seo, 2014. "Perceived Ambiguity and Relevant Measures," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(5), pages 1945-1978, September.
    3. Berger, Loic & Bosetti, Valentina, 2016. "Ellsberg Re-revisited: An Experiment Disentangling Model Uncertainty and Risk Aversion," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 236239, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    4. Loic Berger & Valentina Bosetti, 2016. "Ellsberg Re-revisited: An Experiment Disentangling Model Uncertainty and Risk Aversion," Working Papers 2016.37, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    5. Stefan Trautmann & Peter P. Wakker, 2018. "Making the Anscombe-Aumann approach to ambiguity suitable for descriptive applications," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 83-116, February.
    6. Ying He, 2021. "Revisiting Ellsberg’s and Machina’s Paradoxes: A Two-Stage Evaluation Model Under Ambiguity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(11), pages 6897-6914, November.
    7. Filiz-Ozbay, Emel & Gulen, Huseyin & Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Ozbay, Erkut Y., 2022. "Comparing ambiguous urns with different sizes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    8. Marciano Siniscalchi, 2009. "Vector Expected Utility and Attitudes Toward Variation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(3), pages 801-855, May.
    9. Richard J. Arend, 2020. "Strategic decision-making under ambiguity: a new problem space and a proposed optimization approach," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(3), pages 1231-1251, November.
    10. Keiran Sharpe, 2023. "On the Ellsberg and Machina paradoxes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 95(4), pages 539-573, November.
    11. Richard J. Arend, 2022. "Strategy under Ambiguity, and a New Type of Decision Dilemma," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-17, March.
    12. Jewitt, Ian & Mukerji, Sujoy, 2017. "Ordering ambiguous acts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 213-267.
    13. Amit Kothiyal & Vitalie Spinu & Peter Wakker, 2014. "An experimental test of prospect theory for predicting choice under ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 1-17, February.
    14. Blavatskyy, Pavlo R., 2013. "Two examples of ambiguity aversion," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 206-208.
    15. Corina Birghila & Tim J. Boonen & Mario Ghossoub, 2023. "Optimal insurance under maxmin expected utility," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 467-501, April.
    16. Peter, Richard & Ying, Jie, 2020. "Do you trust your insurer? Ambiguity about contract nonperformance and optimal insurance demand," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 938-954.
    17. Zhihua Li & Julia Müller & Peter P. Wakker & Tong V. Wang, 2018. "The Rich Domain of Ambiguity Explored," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(7), pages 3227-3240, July.
    18. Keck, Steffen & Diecidue, Enrico & Budescu, David V., 2014. "Group decisions under ambiguity: Convergence to neutrality," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 60-71.
    19. Krahnen, Jan Pieter & Ockenfels, Peter & Wilde, Christian, 2014. "Measuring ambiguity aversion: A systematic experimental approach," SAFE Working Paper Series 55, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    20. Hill, Brian, 2023. "Beyond uncertainty aversion," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 196-222.

    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:gam:jadmsc:v:12:y:2022:i:3:p:108-:d:898408. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.