Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-9t7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-04T16:07:08.034Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experimental elicitation of ambiguity attitude using the random incentive system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Aurélien Baillon Open the ORCID record for Aurélien Baillon [Opens in a new window] ,
Yoram Halevy Open the ORCID record for Yoram Halevy [Opens in a new window]  and
Chen Li Open the ORCID record for Chen Li [Opens in a new window]
Aurélien Baillon*
Affiliation:
Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Yoram Halevy*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Toronto. Max Gluskin House, University of Toronto, 150 St. George St., Toronto, Ontario M5S 3G7, Canada Department of Economics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem 9190501, Israel
Chen Li*
Affiliation:
Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands
*
baillon@ese.eur.nl, url: http://aurelienbaillon.com
yoram.halevy@utoronto.ca https://uoft.me/yoramhalevy
c.li@ese.eur.nl http://goo.gl/unzb6H
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We demonstrate how the standard usage of the random incentive system in ambiguity experiments eliciting certainty and probability equivalents might not be incentive compatible if the decision-maker is ambiguity averse. We propose a slight modification of the procedure in which the randomization takes place before decisions are made and the state is realized, and prove that if subjects evaluate the experimental environment in that way (first-risk, second-uncertainty), incentive compatibility may be restored.

Keywords

Incentive compatibilityIntegration vs IsolationAmbiguity aversionNon-expected utilityReduction of compound lotteriesC91D81

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , June 2022 , pp. 1002 - 1023
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Economic Science Association 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-021-09739-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The research of Baillon and Li was made possible by a Vidi grant and a Veni grant of the Dutch Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). First version: May 2013.

References

Abdellaoui, M, Baillon, A, Placido, L, & Wakker, PP (2011). The rich domain of uncertainty: Source functions and their experimental implementation. American Economic Review, 101, 695–723. 10.1257/aer.101.2.695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abdellaoui, M, Klibanoff, P, & Placido, L (2015). Experiments on compound risk in relation to simple risk and to ambiguity. Management Science, 61, 1306–1322. 10.1287/mnsc.2014.1953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahn, D, Choi, S, Gale, D, & Kariv, S (2014). Estimating ambiguity aversion in a portfolio choice experiment. Quantitative Economics, 5, 195–223. 10.3982/QE243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akay, A, Martinsson, P, Medhin, H, & Trautmann, ST (2012). Attitudes toward uncertainty among the poor: an experiment in rural Ethiopia. Theory and Decision, 73, 453–464. 10.1007/s11238-011-9250-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anscombe, FJ, & Aumann, RJ (1963). A definition of subjective probability. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 34, 199–205. 10.1214/aoms/1177704255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azrieli, Y, Chambers, CP, & Healy, PJ (2018). Incentives in experiments: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 126, 1472–1503. 10.1086/698136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bade, S (2015). Randomization devices and the elicitation of ambiguity-averse preferences. Journal of Economic Theory, 159, 221–235. 10.1016/j.jet.2015.05.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baillon, A, & Bleichrodt, H (2015). Testing ambiguity models through the measurement of probabilities for gains and losses. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 7, 77–100.Google Scholar
Baillon, A., Halevy, Y., & Li, C. (forthcoming). Randomize at your own Risk: on the Observability of Ambiguity Aversion, Econometrica.Google Scholar
Baillon, A, Huang, Z, Selim, A, & Wakker, PP (2018). Measuring ambiguity attitudes for all (natural) events. Econometrica, 86, 1839–1858. 10.3982/ECTA14370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baillon, A, & Placido, L (2019). Testing constant absolute and relative ambiguity aversion. Journal of Economic Theory, 181, 309–332. 10.1016/j.jet.2019.02.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barberis, N, Huang, M, & Thaler, R (2006). Individual preferences, monetary gambles, and stock market participation: A case for narrow framing. American Economic Review, 96, 1069–1090. 10.1257/aer.96.4.1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardsley, N., Cubitt, R., Loomes, G., Moffatt, P., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (2009). Experimental economics: Rethinking the rules. USA: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Becker, G, DeGroot, M, & Marschak, J (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science, 9, 226–232. 10.1002/bs.3830090304CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Binmore, K, Stewart, L, & Voorhoeve, A (2012). An experiment on the Ellsberg paradox. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 45, 215–238. 10.1007/s11166-012-9155-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borghans, L, Heckman, JJ, Golsteyn, BH, & Meijers, H (2009). Gender differences in risk aversion and ambiguity aversion. Journal of the European Economic Association, 7, 649–658. 10.1162/JEEA.2009.7.2-3.649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerreia-Vioglio, S, Dillenberger, D, & Ortoleva, P (2015). Cautious expected utility and the certainty effect. Econometrica, 83, 693–728. 10.3982/ECTA11733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerreia-Vioglio, S, Maccheroni, F, Marinacci, M, & Montrucchio, L (2011). Uncertainty averse preferences. Journal of Economic Theory, 146, 1275–1330. 10.1016/j.jet.2011.05.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cettolin, E., & Riedl, A. (2010). Delegation in decision making under uncertainty. Are preferences incomplete, Tech. rep., Citeseer.Google Scholar
Cettolin, E, & Riedl, A (2019). Revealed preferences under uncertainty: Incomplete preferences and preferences for randomization. Journal of Economic Theory, 181, 547–585. 10.1016/j.jet.2019.03.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G, Karni, E, & Levin, D (2013). Ambiguity attitudes and social interactions: An experimental investigation. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 46, 1–25. 10.1007/s11166-012-9157-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chew, S, Miao, B, & Zhong, Z (2017). Partial Ambiguity. Econometrica, 85, 1239–1260. 10.3982/ECTA13239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, M, Jaffray, J-Y, & Said, T (1987). Experimental comparison of individual behavior under risk and under uncertainty for gains and for losses. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 1–22. 10.1016/0749-5978(87)90043-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cubitt, R, van de Kuilen, G, & Mukerji, S (2018). The strength of sensitivity to ambiguity. Theory and Decision, 85, 275–302. 10.1007/s11238-018-9657-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dean, M, & Ortoleva, P (2019). The empirical relationship between nonstandard economic behaviors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 16262–16267. 10.1073/pnas.1821353116CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eisenberger, R, & Weber, M (1995). Willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept for risky and ambiguous lotteries. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 10, 223–233. 10.1007/BF01207552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellsberg, D (1961). Risk, Ambiguity, and the savage axioms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643–669. 10.2307/1884324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, LG, & Halevy, Y (2019). Ambiguous correlation. The Review of Economic Studies, 86, 668–693. 10.1093/restud/rdy008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairley, K., & Sanfey, A.G. (2017). Risk, Ambiguity and Prudence During Adolescence, Available at SSRN 3094143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, CR, & Tversky, A (1995). Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 585–603. 10.2307/2946693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, D, Halevy, Y, & Kneeland, Y (2019). Eliciting risk preferences using choice lists. Quantitative Economics, 10, 217–237. 10.3982/QE856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Füllbrunn, S, Rau, HA, & Weitzel, U (2014). Does ambiguity aversion survive in experimental asset markets?. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 107, 810–826. 10.1016/j.jebo.2014.03.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghirardato, P, & Marinacci, M (2001). Risk, ambiguity, and the separation of utility and beliefs. Mathematics of Operations Research, 26, 864–890. 10.1287/moor.26.4.864.10002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilboa, I, & Schmeidler, D (1989). Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 18, 141–153. 10.1016/0304-4068(89)90018-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillen, B, Snowberg, E, & Yariv, L (2019). Experimenting with measurement error: Techniques with applications to the caltech cohort study. Journal of Political Economy, 127, 1826–1863. 10.1086/701681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, S, & Polak, B (2013). Mean-dispersion preferences and constant absolute uncertainty aversion. Journal of Economic Theory, 148, 1361–1398. 10.1016/j.jet.2012.11.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grether, D. M. (1981). Financial Incentive Effects and Individual Decisionmaking, Social Science Working Paper 401, California Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Halevy, Y (2007). Ellsberg revisited: An experimental study. Econometrica, 75, 503–536. 10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00755.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, C (1986). Preference reversals and the independence axiom. American Economic Review, 76, 508–515.Google Scholar
Holt, C. A. (2007). Markets, Games, & Strategic Behavior, Pearson Education, Inc.Google Scholar
Johnson, C, Baillon, A, Bleichrodt, H, Li, Z, van Dolder, D, & Wakker, PP (2021). Prince: An improved method for measuring incentivized preferences. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 62, 1–28. 10.1007/s11166-021-09346-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D, & Lovallo, D (1993). Timid choices and bold forecasts: A cognitive perspective on risk taking. Management Science, 39, 17–31. 10.1287/mnsc.39.1.17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karni, E (2009). A mechanism for eliciting probabilities. Econometrica, 77, 603–606. 10.3982/ECTA7833Google Scholar
Karni, E., & Safra, Z. (1987a) ‘ Preference reversal’ and the observability of preferences by experimental methods, Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 675–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karni, E., & Safra, Z., (1987b). “Preference reversal” and the observability of preferences by experimental methods, Econometrica, 675–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ke, S, & Zhang, Q (2020). Randomization and ambiguity aversion. Econometrica, 88, 1159–1195. 10.3982/ECTA15182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, S, Diecidue, E, & Budescu, DV (2014). Group decisions under ambiguity: Convergence to neutrality. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 103, 60–71. 10.1016/j.jebo.2014.03.026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keynes, JM (1921). A treatise on probability, London: Macmillan & Co.Google Scholar
König-Kersting, C, & Trautmann, ST (2016). Ambiguity attitudes in decisions for others. Economics Letters, 146, 126–129. 10.1016/j.econlet.2016.07.036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreps, D, & Porteus, E (1978). Temporal resolution of uncertainty and dynamic choice theory. Econometrica, 46, 185–200. 10.2307/1913656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuzmics, C (2017). Abraham Wald’s complete class theorem and Knightian uncertainty. Games and Economic Behavior, 104, 666–673. 10.1016/j.geb.2017.06.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, C, Turmunkh, U, & Wakker, PP (2020). Social and strategic ambiguity versus betrayal aversion. Games and Economic Behavior, 123, 272–287. 10.1016/j.geb.2020.07.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machina, MJ, & Schmeidler, D (1995). Bayes without Bernoulli: Simple conditions for probabilistically sophisticated choice. Journal of Economic Theory, 67, 106–128. 10.1006/jeth.1995.1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maffioletti, A, & Santoni, M (2005). Do trade union leaders violate subjective expected utility?. Some Insights From Experimental Data, Theory and Decision, 59, 207–253.Google Scholar
Oechssler, J, Rau, H, & Roomets, A (2019). Hedging, ambiguity, and the reversal of order axiom. Games and Economic Behavior, 117, 380–387. 10.1016/j.geb.2019.07.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oechssler, J, & Roomets, A (2014). Unintended hedging in ambiguity experiments. Economics Letters, 122, 243–246. 10.1016/j.econlet.2013.11.029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qiu, J., & Weitzel, U. (2011). Reference dependent ambiguity aversion: theory and experiment, Working Paper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quiggin, J (1982). A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3, 323–343. 10.1016/0167-2681(82)90008-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabin, M, & Weizsäcker, G (2009). Narrow bracketing and dominated choices. American Economic Review, 99, 1508–43 10.1257/aer.99.4.1508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raiffa, H (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms: Comment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 690–4 10.2307/1884326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, N., Santos, P., and Capon, T. (2012): Risk, ambiguity and the adoption of new technologies: Experimental evidence from a developing economy, Tech. rep. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.126492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saito, K (2015). Preferences for flexibility and randomization under uncertainty. American Economic Review, 105, 1246–71 10.1257/aer.20131030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, L. J. (1954). The foundations of statistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Segal, U (1988). Does the preference reversal phenomenon necessarily contradict the independence axiom?. American Economic Review, 78(233–36), 00116.Google Scholar
Segal, U (1990). Two-stage lotteries without the reduction axiom. Econometrica, 58, 349–377. 10.2307/2938207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seo, K (2009). Ambiguity and second-order belief. Econometrica, 77, 1575–1605. 10.3982/ECTA6727Google Scholar
Stahl, DO (2014). Heterogeneity of ambiguity preferences. Review of Economics and Statistics, 96, 609–617. 10.1162/REST_a_00392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutter, M, Kocher, MG, Glätzle-Rützler, D, & Trautmann, ST (2013). Impatience and uncertainty: Experimental decisions predict adolescents’ field behavior. American Economic Review, 103, 510–31 10.1257/aer.103.1.510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trautmann, S. T. and van de Kuilen, G. (2015): Ambiguity Attitudes, in The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making, ed. by Keren, G. and Wu, G., Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Trautmann, ST, Vieider, FM, & Wakker, PP (2011). Preference reversals for ambiguity aversion. Management Science, 57, 1320–1333. 10.1287/mnsc.1110.1343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A, & Kahneman, D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice, science. 211, 453–458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tversky, A, & Kahneman, D (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323. 10.1007/BF00122574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voorhoeve, A, Binmore, K, Stefansson, A, & Stewart, L (2016). Ambiguity attitudes, framing, and consistency. Theory and Decision, 81, 313–337. 10.1007/s11238-016-9544-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Baillon et al. supplementary material

Supplementary Material of “Experimental Elicitation of Ambiguity Attitude Using the Random Incentive System”
Download Baillon et al. supplementary material(File)
File 237.9 KB