IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/theord/v90y2021i3d10.1007_s11238-020-09778-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Savage vs. Anscombe-Aumann: an experimental investigation of ambiguity frameworks

Author

Listed:
  • Jörg Oechssler

    (University of Heidelberg
    University of Heidelberg)

  • Alex Roomets

    (Franklin and Marshall College)

Abstract

The Savage and the Anscombe–Aumann frameworks are the two most popular approaches used when modeling ambiguity. The former is more flexible, but the latter is often preferred for its simplicity. We conduct an experiment where subjects place bets on the joint outcome of an ambiguous urn and a fair coin. We document that more than a third of our subjects make choices that are incompatible with Anscombe–Aumann for any preferences, while the Savage framework is flexible enough to account for subjects’ behaviors.

Suggested Citation

  • Jörg Oechssler & Alex Roomets, 2021. "Savage vs. Anscombe-Aumann: an experimental investigation of ambiguity frameworks," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(3), pages 405-416, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:90:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s11238-020-09778-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s11238-020-09778-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11238-020-09778-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11238-020-09778-w?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Olivier L’Haridon & Lætitia Placido, 2010. "Betting on Machina’s reflection example: an experiment on ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 375-393, September.
    2. Peter Klibanoff, 2001. "Stochastically independent randomization and uncertainty aversion," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 18(3), pages 605-620.
    3. Mark J. Machina, 2009. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Rank-Dependence Axioms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(1), pages 385-392, March.
    4. Eichberger, Jurgen & Kelsey, David, 1996. "Uncertainty Aversion and Preference for Randomisation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 31-43, October.
    5. Jürgen Eichberger & Simon Grant & David Kelsey, 2016. "Randomization and dynamic consistency," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 62(3), pages 547-566, August.
    6. Yoram Halevy, 2007. "Ellsberg Revisited: An Experimental Study," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(2), pages 503-536, March.
    7. Oechssler, Jörg & Roomets, Alex, 2014. "Unintended hedging in ambiguity experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 243-246.
    8. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    9. Oechssler, Jörg & Rau, Hannes & Roomets, Alex, 2019. "Hedging, ambiguity, and the reversal of order axiom," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 380-387.
    10. Jürgen Eichberger & David Kelsey, 1999. "E-Capacities and the Ellsberg Paradox," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 107-138, April.
    11. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    12. Itzhak Gilboa, 2004. "Uncertainty in Economic Theory," Post-Print hal-00756317, HAL.
    13. Mark J. Machina, 2014. "Ambiguity Aversion with Three or More Outcomes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(12), pages 3814-3840, December.
    14. 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.
    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. 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. 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.
    3. König-Kersting, Christian & Kops, Christopher & Trautmann, Stefan T., 2023. "A test of (weak) certainty independence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Calford, Evan M., 2020. "Uncertainty aversion in game theory: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 720-734.
    6. Michel Grabisch & Benjamin Monet & Vassili Vergopoulos, 2023. "Subjective expected utility through stochastic independence," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 76(3), pages 723-757, October.
    7. Ronald Stauber, 2019. "A strategic product for belief functions," ANU Working Papers in Economics and Econometrics 2019-668, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics.
    8. Oechssler, Jörg & Rau, Hannes & Roomets, Alex, 2016. "Hedging and Ambiguity," Working Papers 0621, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    9. Keiran Sharpe, 2023. "On the Ellsberg and Machina paradoxes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 95(4), pages 539-573, November.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. ,, 2012. "The ex-ante aggregation of opinions under uncertainty," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 7(3), September.
    15. Fan Wang, 2022. "Rank-Dependent Utility Under Multiple Priors," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(11), pages 8166-8183, November.
    16. Stauber, Ronald, 2019. "A strategic product for belief functions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 38-64.
    17. repec:awi:wpaper:621 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. 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.
    19. Jürgen Eichberger & David Kelsey, 2014. "Optimism And Pessimism In Games," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 55(2), pages 483-505, May.
    20. Loïc Berger & Louis Eeckhoudt, 2021. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Value of Diversification," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1639-1647, March.
    21. 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.

    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_s11238-020-09778-w. 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.