IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/theord/v90y2021i3d10.1007_s11238-020-09759-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Signaling probabilities in ambiguity: who reacts to vague news?

Author

Listed:
  • Dmitri Vinogradov

    (University of Glasgow
    National Research University Higher School of Economics)

  • Yousef Makhlouf

    (Nottingham Trent University)

Abstract

Ambiguity affects decisions of people who exhibit a distaste of and require a premium for dealing with it. Do ambiguity-neutral subjects completely disregard ambiguity and react to any vague news? Online vending platforms often attempt to affect buyer’s decisions by messages like “20 people are looking at this item right now” or “The average score based on 567 reviews is 7.9/10”. We augment the two-color Ellsberg experiment with similarly worded signals about the unknown probability of success. All decision-makers, including ambiguity-neutral, recognize and account for ambiguity; ambiguity-neutral subjects are less likely to respond to vague signals. The difference between decisions of ambiguity-neutral and non-neutral subjects vanishes for high precision signals; still less than 60% subjects choose the ambiguous urn, even for high communicated probabilities of success. We conjecture participants may discard information, if they see no contradiction between it and their prior beliefs, hence the latter are not updated. Higher confidence makes subjects more likely to discard the news, and empirically ambiguity-neutral subjects appear more confident than those ambiguity-averse.

Suggested Citation

  • Dmitri Vinogradov & Yousef Makhlouf, 2021. "Signaling probabilities in ambiguity: who reacts to vague news?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(3), pages 371-404, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:90:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s11238-020-09759-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11238-020-09759-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11238-020-09759-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11238-020-09759-z?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. Gilboa Itzhak & Schmeidler David, 1993. "Updating Ambiguous Beliefs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 33-49, February.
    2. John Horton & David Rand & Richard Zeckhauser, 2011. "The online laboratory: conducting experiments in a real labor market," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(3), pages 399-425, September.
    3. Dominiak, Adam & Duersch, Peter & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2012. "A dynamic Ellsberg urn experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 625-638.
    4. Dimmock, Stephen G. & Kouwenberg, Roy & Mitchell, Olivia S. & Peijnenburg, Kim, 2016. "Ambiguity aversion and household portfolio choice puzzles: Empirical evidence," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(3), pages 559-577.
    5. repec:dau:papers:123456789/7333 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. 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.
    7. Lamla, Michael J. & Vinogradov, Dmitri V., 2019. "Central bank announcements: Big news for little people?," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 21-38.
    8. Ulrich, Maxim, 2013. "Inflation ambiguity and the term structure of U.S. Government bonds," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 295-309.
    9. Cohen, M. & Gilboa, I. & Jaffray, J.Y. & Schmeidler, D., 2000. "An experimental study of updating ambiguous beliefs," Risk, Decision and Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 123-133, June.
    10. Armin Falk & James J. Heckman, 2009. "Lab Experiments are a Major Source of Knowledge in the Social Sciences," Working Papers 200935, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    11. Chateauneuf, Alain & Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon, 2007. "Choice under uncertainty with the best and worst in mind: Neo-additive capacities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 538-567, November.
    12. Dow, James & Werlang, Sergio Ribeiro da Costa, 1992. "Uncertainty Aversion, Risk Aversion, and the Optimal Choice of Portfolio," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(1), pages 197-204, January.
    13. Ali Ahmed & Göran Skogh, 2006. "Choices at various levels of uncertainty: An experimental test of the restated diversification theorem," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 183-196, December.
    14. Stefan Trautmann & Ferdinand Vieider & Peter Wakker, 2008. "Causes of ambiguity aversion: Known versus unknown preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 225-243, June.
    15. Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon & Kelsey, David, 2007. "Updating Choquet beliefs," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(7-8), pages 888-899, September.
    16. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Aurelien Baillon & Laetitia Placido & Peter P. Wakker, 2011. "The Rich Domain of Uncertainty: Source Functions and Their Experimental Implementation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 695-723, April.
    17. Larry G. Epstein & Martin Schneider, 2007. "Learning Under Ambiguity," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 74(4), pages 1275-1303.
    18. William Neilson, 2010. "A simplified axiomatic approach to ambiguity aversion," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 113-124, October.
    19. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Kuhn, Michael A., 2012. "Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 1-8.
    20. Christopher D. Carroll, 2003. "Macroeconomic Expectations of Households and Professional Forecasters," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(1), pages 269-298.
    21. Rubinstein, Ariel, 2001. "A theorist's view of experiments," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(4-6), pages 615-628, May.
    22. Lloyd B. Thomas, 1999. "Survey Measures of Expected U.S. Inflation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 13(4), pages 125-144, Fall.
    23. Guillaume Hollard & Sébastien Massoni & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2016. "In search of good probability assessors: an experimental comparison of elicitation rules for confidence judgments," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(3), pages 363-387, March.
    24. Roland G FryerJr & Philipp Harms & Matthew O Jackson, 2019. "Updating Beliefs when Evidence is Open to Interpretation: Implications for Bias and Polarization," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(5), pages 1470-1501.
    25. Oechssler, Jörg & Roomets, Alex, 2015. "A test of mechanical ambiguity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 153-162.
    26. von Beschwitz, Bastian & Chuprinin, Oleg & Massa, Massimo, 2017. "Why Do Short Sellers Like Qualitative News?," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(2), pages 645-675, April.
    27. Jeff Dominitz & Charles F. Manski, 2004. "How Should We Measure Consumer Confidence?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 18(2), pages 51-66, Spring.
    28. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Umut Keskin & Olivier l’Haridon & Chen Li, 2018. "The Effect of Learning on Ambiguity Attitudes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 2181-2198, May.
    29. Budescu, David V. & Kuhn, Kristine M. & Kramer, Karen M. & Johnson, Timothy R., 2002. "Modeling certainty equivalents for imprecise gambles," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 748-768, July.
    30. Massa, Massimo & von Beschwitz, Bastian & Keim, Donald B, 2015. "First to ?Read? the News: News Analytics and Institutional Trading," CEPR Discussion Papers 10534, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    31. Chew Soo Hong & Jacob S. Sagi, 2006. "Event Exchangeability: Probabilistic Sophistication Without Continuity or Monotonicity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(3), pages 771-786, May.
    32. Guillaume Hollard & Sébastien Massoni & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2016. "In search of good probability assessors: an experimental comparison of elicitation rules for confidence judgments," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-01306258, HAL.
    33. Robert F. Nau, 2006. "Uncertainty Aversion with Second-Order Utilities and Probabilities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(1), pages 136-145, January.
    34. Chew, Soo Hong & Sagi, Jacob S., 2008. "Small worlds: Modeling attitudes toward sources of uncertainty," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 139(1), pages 1-24, March.
    35. Eichberger, Jürgen & Vinogradov, Dmitri, 2015. "Lowest-Unmatched Price Auctions," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 1-17.
    36. Vinogradov, Dmitri, 2012. "Destructive effects of constructive ambiguity in risky times," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 1459-1481.
    37. Ning Du & David V. Budescu, 2005. "The Effects of Imprecise Probabilities and Outcomes in Evaluating Investment Options," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(12), pages 1791-1803, December.
    38. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    39. Curley, Shawn P. & Yates, J. Frank, 1985. "The center and range of the probability interval as factors affecting ambiguity preferences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 273-287, October.
    40. Jacob Boudoukh & Ronen Feldman & Shimon Kogan & Matthew Richardson, 2013. "Which News Moves Stock Prices? A Textual Analysis," NBER Working Papers 18725, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    41. Stephen G. Dimmock & Roy Kouwenberg & Peter P. Wakker, 2016. "Ambiguity Attitudes in a Large Representative Sample," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(5), pages 1363-1380, May.
    42. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 153-174, Spring.
    43. Eichberger, Jürgen & Grant, Simon & Kelsey, David, 2010. "Comparing three ways to update Choquet beliefs," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 91-94, May.
    44. Bowen, James & Qiu, Zi-lei & Li, Yi, 1994. "Robust Tolerance for Ambiguity," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 155-165, January.
    45. Daniel McFadden & Albert Bemmaor & Francis Caro & Jeff Dominitz & Byung-Hill Jun & Arthur Lewbel & Rosa Matzkin & Francesca Molinari & Norbert Schwarz & Robert Willis & Joachim Winter, 2005. "Statistical Analysis of Choice Experiments and Surveys," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 183-196, December.
    46. Curley, Shawn P. & Yates, J. Frank & Abrams, Richard A., 1986. "Psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 230-256, October.
    47. Budescu, David V. & Kuhn, Kristine M. & Kramer, Karen M. & Johnson, Timothy R., 2002. "Erratum to "Modeling certainty equivalents for imprecise gambles" [Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 88 (2002) 748-768]," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1214-1213, November.
    48. Michael Birnbaum, 2000. "Psychological experiments on the internet," Framed Field Experiments 00125, The Field Experiments Website.
    49. Vinogradov, Dmitri & Shadrina, Elena, 2013. "Non-monetary incentives in online experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 119(3), pages 306-310.
    50. repec:dau:papers:123456789/7357 is not listed on IDEAS
    51. 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.
    52. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, 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. Aljoscha Minnich & Hauke Roggenkamp & Andreas Lange, 2023. "Ambiguity Attitudes and Surprises: Experimental Evidence on Communicating New Information within a Large Population Sample," CESifo Working Paper Series 10783, CESifo.
    2. Md Tawhidul Islam & Kenta Tanaka & Koji Kotani, 2024. "Sharing information and threshold ambiguity in public bads prevention," Working Papers SDES-2024-3, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Jun 2024.

    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. Dmitri Vinogradov & Yousef Makhlouf, 2017. "Signaling Probabilities in Ambiguity: on the impact of vague news," Working Papers 2017_12, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
    2. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Umut Keskin & Olivier l’Haridon & Chen Li, 2018. "The Effect of Learning on Ambiguity Attitudes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 2181-2198, May.
    3. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Umut Keskin & Olivier L'Haridon & Author-Name: Chen Li, 2013. "Learning under ambiguity: An experiment using initial public offerings on a stock market," Economics Working Paper Archive (University of Rennes & University of Caen) 201331, Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM), University of Rennes, University of Caen and CNRS.
    4. Konstantinos Georgalos, 2019. "An experimental test of the predictive power of dynamic ambiguity models," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(1), pages 51-83, August.
    5. König-Kersting, Christian & Kops, Christopher & Trautmann, Stefan T., 2023. "A test of (weak) certainty independence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    6. Georgalos, Konstantinos, 2021. "Dynamic decision making under ambiguity: An experimental investigation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 28-46.
    7. Stephen G. Dimmock & Roy Kouwenberg & Peter P. Wakker, 2016. "Ambiguity Attitudes in a Large Representative Sample," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(5), pages 1363-1380, May.
    8. Kathleen Ngangoué, M., 2021. "Learning under ambiguity: An experiment in gradual information processing," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    9. 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.
    10. Kanin Anantanasuwong & Roy Kouwenberg & Olivia S. Mitchell & Kim Peijnenburg, 2024. "Ambiguity attitudes for real-world sources: field evidence from a large sample of investors," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 27(3), pages 548-581, July.
    11. Füllbrunn, Sascha & Rau, Holger A. & Weitzel, Utz, 2014. "Does ambiguity aversion survive in experimental asset markets?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PB), pages 810-826.
    12. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Horst Zank, 2023. "Source and rank-dependent utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(4), pages 949-981, May.
    13. Aurélien Baillon & Zhenxing Huang & Asli Selim & Peter P. Wakker, 2018. "Measuring Ambiguity Attitudes for All (Natural) Events," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1839-1858, September.
    14. 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.
    15. Kanin Anantanasuwong & Roy Kouwenberg & Olivia S. Mitchell & Kim Peijnenberg, 2019. "Ambiguity Attitudes about Investments: Evidence from the Field," NBER Working Papers 25561, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Oechssler, Jörg & Roomets, Alex, 2015. "A test of mechanical ambiguity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 153-162.
    17. Chen Li, 2017. "Are the poor worse at dealing with ambiguity?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(3), pages 239-268, June.
    18. Kocher, Martin G. & Lahno, Amrei Marie & Trautmann, Stefan T., 2018. "Ambiguity aversion is not universal," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 268-283.
    19. Li, Chen & Turmunkh, Uyanga & Wakker, Peter P., 2020. "Social and strategic ambiguity versus betrayal aversion," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 272-287.
    20. Stephen Dimmock & Roy Kouwenberg & Olivia Mitchell & Kim Peijnenburg, 2015. "Estimating ambiguity preferences and perceptions in multiple prior models: Evidence from the field," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 219-244, December.

    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:kap:theord:v:90:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s11238-020-09759-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.