Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/288911 
Year of Publication: 
2020
Citation: 
[Journal:] Theory and Decision [ISSN:] 1573-7187 [Volume:] 90 [Issue:] 3-4 [Publisher:] Springer US [Place:] New York, NY [Year:] 2020 [Pages:] 405-416
Publisher: 
Springer US, New York, NY
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.
Subjects: 
Ellsberg paradox
Ambiguity
Experiment
Persistent Identifier of the first edition: 
Creative Commons License: 
cc-by Logo
Document Type: 
Article
Document Version: 
Published Version

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.