IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/econjl/v128y2018i614p2480-2506.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

You Need to Recognise Ambiguity to Avoid It

Author

Listed:
  • Chew Soo Hong
  • Mark Ratchford
  • Jacob S. Sagi

Abstract

After screening for attentiveness and comprehension, we present subjects with Ellsberg's (1961) two‐urn problem using essentially equivalent but representationally complex matrices. High‐comprehension subjects exhibit rates of ambiguity aversion typical of the standard two‐urn problem, while low‐comprehension subjects appear to randomise. In screening, we classify subjects as ‘probability‐minded’ or ‘ambiguity‐minded’, depending on whether they assign probabilities to draws from a card deck of unknown composition. Among high‐comprehension subjects, ‘mindedness’ explains twenty times more variation in ambiguity attitudes than all other demographic characteristics combined. Compared with their ‘probability‐minded’ counterparts, ‘ambiguity‐minded’ subjects are younger and more educated, analytic, and reflective about their choices.

Suggested Citation

  • Chew Soo Hong & Mark Ratchford & Jacob S. Sagi, 2018. "You Need to Recognise Ambiguity to Avoid It," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(614), pages 2480-2506, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:econjl:v:128:y:2018:i:614:p:2480-2506
    DOI: 10.1111/ecoj.12541
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12541
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ecoj.12541?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Yiting Chen & Songfa Zhong, 2024. "Source Dependence in Effort Provision," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 65(3), pages 1499-1517, August.
    2. Ilke Aydogan & Loïc Berger & Valentina Bosetti, 2023. "Unraveling Ambiguity Aversion," Post-Print hal-04370668, HAL.
    3. Kopylov, Igor, 2021. "Multiple priors and comparative ignorance," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    4. Sujoy Mukerji & Han N. Ozsoylev & Jean‐Marc Tallon, 2023. "Trading Ambiguity: A Tale Of Two Heterogeneities," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 64(3), pages 1127-1164, August.
    5. Masaki Aoyagi & Takehito Masuda & Naoko Nishimura, 2021. "Strategic Uncertainty and Probabilistic Sophistication," ISER Discussion Paper 1117, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    6. 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.
    7. Dlugosch, Dennis & Horn, Kristian & Wang, Mei, 2023. "New experimental evidence on the relationship between home bias, ambiguity aversion and familiarity heuristics," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 125.
    8. Li, Jiangyan & Fairley, Kim & Fenneman, Achiel, 2024. "Does it matter how we produce ambiguity in experiments?," MPRA Paper 122336, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Mark Schneider & Jonathan W. Leland & Nathaniel T. Wilcox, 2018. "Ambiguity framed," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(2), pages 133-151, October.
      • Mark Schneider & Jonathan Leland & Nathaniel T. Wilcox, 2016. "Ambiguity Framed," Working Papers 16-11, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    10. Milo Bianchi & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2019. "Ambiguity Preferences and Portfolio Choices: Evidence from the Field," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(4), pages 1486-1501, April.

    More about this item

    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:wly:econjl:v:128:y:2018:i:614:p:2480-2506. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/resssea.html .

    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.