Coherent-ambiguityaversionisdefinedwithinthe(Klibanoffetal.,Econo- metrica 73:1849–1892, 2005) smooth-ambiguity model (henceforth KMM) as the combination of choice-ambiguity and value-ambiguity aversion. Five ambiguous deci- sion tasks are analyzed theoretically, where an individual faces two-stage lotteries with binomial, uniform, or unknown second-order probabilities. Theoretical predictions are then tested through a 10-task experiment. In (unambiguous) tasks 1–5, risk aversion is elicited through both a portfolio choice method and a BDM mechanism. In (ambigu- ous) tasks 6–10, choice-ambiguity aversion is elicited through the portfolio choice method, while value-ambiguity aversion comes about through the BDM mechanism. The behavior of over 75 % of classified subjects is in line with the KMM model in all tasks 6–10, independent of their degree of risk aversion. Furthermore, the percentage of coherent-ambiguity-averse subjects is lower in the binomial than in the uniform and in the unknown treatments, with only the latter difference being significant. The most part of coherent-ambiguity-loving subjects show a high risk aversion.
Eliciting ambiguity aversion in unknown and in compound lotteries. A KMM experimental approach / Attanasi, Giuseppe; Gollier, Christian; Montesano, Aldo; Pace, Noemi. - In: THEORY AND DECISION. - ISSN 0040-5833. - (2014). [10.2139/ssrn.2156196]
Eliciting ambiguity aversion in unknown and in compound lotteries. A KMM experimental approach
Giuseppe Attanasi
;
2014
Abstract
Coherent-ambiguityaversionisdefinedwithinthe(Klibanoffetal.,Econo- metrica 73:1849–1892, 2005) smooth-ambiguity model (henceforth KMM) as the combination of choice-ambiguity and value-ambiguity aversion. Five ambiguous deci- sion tasks are analyzed theoretically, where an individual faces two-stage lotteries with binomial, uniform, or unknown second-order probabilities. Theoretical predictions are then tested through a 10-task experiment. In (unambiguous) tasks 1–5, risk aversion is elicited through both a portfolio choice method and a BDM mechanism. In (ambigu- ous) tasks 6–10, choice-ambiguity aversion is elicited through the portfolio choice method, while value-ambiguity aversion comes about through the BDM mechanism. The behavior of over 75 % of classified subjects is in line with the KMM model in all tasks 6–10, independent of their degree of risk aversion. Furthermore, the percentage of coherent-ambiguity-averse subjects is lower in the binomial than in the uniform and in the unknown treatments, with only the latter difference being significant. The most part of coherent-ambiguity-loving subjects show a high risk aversion.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Attanasi_Eliciting_2014.pdf
solo gestori archivio
Tipologia:
Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza:
Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione
831.64 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
831.64 kB | Adobe PDF | Contatta l'autore |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.