IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/122130.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Mitigating Ambiguity Aversion via Counterfactual Priors: A Resolution of Ellsberg's Paradox

Author

Listed:
  • Koundouri, Phoebe
  • Pittis, Nikitas
  • Samartzis, Panagiotis

Abstract

Ellsberg-type preferences violate one of the principles for Bayesian rationality, namely Savageís Sure Thing Principle, and are among the main empirical results against Subjective Expected Utility theory. In this paper, we propose a novel strategy for dealing with ambiguity aversion and the resulting Ellsberg-type choices. First, we identify the presence of "asymmetric information" as the main cause of ambiguity aversion. Second, we develop a solution for Ellsberg's paradox which emerges as a direct application of counterfactual thinking, implemented to the specific choice problem described by Ellsberg. Third we analyze the psychological, methodological and logical merits of the developed counterfactual strategy, and show that its application solves the problems of "error correction" and "unconceived alternatives", two of the main complaints about Bayesian Confirmation Theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Koundouri, Phoebe & Pittis, Nikitas & Samartzis, Panagiotis, 2022. "Mitigating Ambiguity Aversion via Counterfactual Priors: A Resolution of Ellsberg's Paradox," MPRA Paper 122130, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:122130
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/122130/1/MPRA_paper_122130.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    3. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    4. Faruk Gul & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 2001. "Temptation and Self-Control," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(6), pages 1403-1435, November.
    5. Craig R. Fox & Amos Tversky, 1995. "Ambiguity Aversion and Comparative Ignorance," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(3), pages 585-603.
    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.
    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. Phoebe Koundouri & Nikitas Pittis & Panagiotis Samartzis, 2024. "Comparative Ignorance as an Explanation of Ambiguity Aversion and Ellsberg Choices: A Survey with a New Proposal for Bayesian Training," DEOS Working Papers 2408, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    2. Olga Metzger & Thomas Spengler, 2019. "Modeling rational decisions in ambiguous situations: a multi-valued logic approach," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 271-290, April.
    3. Laure Cabantous & Denis Hilton, 2006. "De l'aversion à l'ambiguïté aux attitudes face à l'ambiguïté. Les apports d'une perspective psychologique en économie," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 57(2), pages 259-280.
    4. Phoebe Koundouri & Nikitas Pittis & Panagiotis Samartzis, 2023. "Counterfactual Priors: A Bayesian Response to Ellsberg's Paradox," DEOS Working Papers 2307, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    5. Hennlock, Magnus, 2009. "Robust Control in Global Warming Management: An Analytical Dynamic Integrated Assessment," RFF Working Paper Series dp-09-19, Resources for the Future.
    6. Ali al-Nowaihi & Sanjit Dhami, 2016. "The Ellsberg paradox: A challenge to quantum decision theory?," Discussion Papers in Economics 16/08, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester.
    7. André Lapied & Thomas Rongiconi, 2013. "Ambiguity as a Source of Temptation: Modeling Unstable Beliefs," Working Papers halshs-00797631, HAL.
    8. Casaca, Paulo & Chateauneuf, Alain & Faro, José Heleno, 2014. "Ignorance and competence in choices under uncertainty," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 143-150.
    9. Jean-Marc Tallon & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2006. "Beliefs and Dynamic Consistency," Chapters, in: Richard Arena & Agnès Festré (ed.), Knowledge, Beliefs and Economics, chapter 7, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Aflaki, Sam, 2013. "The effect of environmental uncertainty on the tragedy of the commons," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 240-253.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Oechssler, Jörg & Roomets, Alex, 2015. "A test of mechanical ambiguity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 153-162.
    15. M. Vittoria Levati & Stefan Napel & Ivan Soraperra, 2017. "Collective Choices Under Ambiguity," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 133-149, January.
    16. Eddie Dekel & Barton L. Lipman, 2010. "How (Not) to Do Decision Theory," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 257-282, September.
    17. 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.
    18. John D. Hey & Noemi Pace, 2018. "The explanatory and predictive power of non two-stage-probability theories of decision making under ambiguity," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 6, pages 139-167, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    19. Ali al-Nowaihi & Sanjit Dhami & Mengxing Wei, 2018. "Quantum Decision Theory and the Ellsberg Paradox," CESifo Working Paper Series 7158, CESifo.
    20. Sergio Almeida & Marcos Rangel, 2016. "Probabilistic Sophistication, Sources Of Uncertainty, And Cognitive Ability: Experimental Evidence," Anais do XLII Encontro Nacional de Economia [Proceedings of the 42nd Brazilian Economics Meeting] 131, ANPEC - Associação Nacional dos Centros de Pós-Graduação em Economia [Brazilian Association of Graduate Programs in Economics].

    More about this item

    Keywords

    counterfactual priors; ambiguity; ellsberg paradox. JEL ClassiÖcation: C44; D81; D83; D89;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C0 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - General
    • C02 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - General - - - Mathematical Economics

    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:pra:mprapa:122130. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.