Betting on Machina’s reflection example: an experiment on ambiguity Authors Olivier L’Haridon Greg-Hec & University Paris Sorbonne Lætitia Placido Greg-Hec & CNRS, HEC Paris School of Management Article

First Online: 16 December 2008 Received: 30 May 2008 Accepted: 25 November 2008 DOI :
10.1007/s11238-008-9128-9

Cite this article as: L’Haridon, O. & Placido, L. Theory Decis (2010) 69: 375. doi:10.1007/s11238-008-9128-9
Abstract In a recent article, Machina (Am Econ Rev forthcoming, 2008) suggested choice problems in the spirit of Ellsberg (Q J Econ 75:643–669, 1961), which challenge tail-separability, an implication of Choquet expected utility (CEU), to a similar extent as the Ellsberg paradox challenged the sure-thing principle implied by subjective expected utility (SEU). We have tested choice behavior for bets on one of Machina’s choice problems, the reflection example. Our results indicate that tail-separability is violated by a large majority of subjects (over 70% of the sample). These empirical findings complement the theoretical analysis of Machina (Am Econ Rev forthcoming, 2008) and, together, they confirm the need for new approaches in the analysis of ambiguity for decision making.

Keywords Ambiguity Choquet expected utility Experimental economics

References Abdellaoui M., Vossmann F., Weber M. (2005) Choice-based elicitation and decomposition of decision weights for gains and losses under uncertainty. Management Science 51(9): 1384–1399

CrossRef Baillon, A., L’Haridon, O., & Placido, L. (2008). Risk, ambiguity, and the rank-dependence axioms: A comment . Working Paper, HEC-Paris School of Management.

Birnbaum M. (2008) New paradoxes of risky decision making. Psychological Review 115: 463–501

CrossRef Camerer C., Ho T.H. (1994) Violations of the betweenness axiom and nonlinearity in probability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 8(2): 167–196

CrossRef Camerer C., Weber M. (1992) Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5: 325–370

CrossRef Chew H.S., Wakker P. (1996) The comonotonic sure-thing principle. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 12(1): 5–27

CrossRef Conlisk J. (1989) Three variants on the allais example. American Economic Review 79(3): 392–407

Diecidue E., Wakker P. (2001) On the intuition of rank-dependent utility. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 23(3): 281–298

CrossRef Diecidue E., Wakker P., Zeelenberg M. (2007) Eliciting decision weights by adapting de finetti’s betting-odds method to prospect theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 34(3): 179–199

CrossRef Ellsberg D. (1961) Risk, ambiguity and the savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics 75: 643–669

CrossRef Fennema H., Wakker P. (1996) A test of rank-dependent utility in the context of ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 13(1): 19–35

CrossRef Fox C., Tversky A. (1995) Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 110(3): 585–603

CrossRef Frisch D., Baron J. (1988) Ambiguity and rationality. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 1: 149–157

CrossRef Gilboa I. (1987) Expected utility with purely subjective non-additive probabilities. Journal of Mathematical Economics 16(1): 65–88

CrossRef Gilboa I., Schmeidler D. (1989) Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior. Journal of Mathematical Economics 18(2): 141–153

CrossRef Halevy Y. (2007) Ellsberg revisited: An experimental study. Econometrica 75(2): 503–536

CrossRef Harrison G., Lau M., Rutström E. (2007a) Estimating risk attitudes in Denmark: A field experiment. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 109(2): 341–368

CrossRef Harrison G., List J., Towe C. (2007b) Naturally occurring preferences and exogenous laboratory experiments: A case study of risk aversion. Econometrica 75(2): 433–458

CrossRef Hey, J., Lolito, G., & Maffioletti, A. (2007). Choquet ok? Discussion Paper, University of York.

Kahneman D., Tversky A. (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47: 263–291

CrossRef L’Haridon O., Placido L. (2008) An allais paradox for generalized expected utility theories?. Economic Bulletin 4(19): 1–6

Luce R., Marley A. (2005) Ranked additive utility representations of gambles: Old and new axiomatizations. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 30: 21–62

CrossRef Machina, M. (2008). Risk, ambiguity, and the rank-dependence axioms. American Economic Review , forthcoming.

McCrimmon, K., & Larsson, S. (1979). Utility theory: Axioms versus paradoxes. In M. Allais, & O. Hagen (Eds.), Expected utility hypotheses and the Allais paradox (pp. 27–145). D. Reidel.

Mukerji, S., & Tallon, J. M. (2004). An overview of economic applications of David Schmeidler’s models of decision making under uncertainty. In I. Gilboa (Ed.), Uncertainty in economic theory: A collection of essays in honor of David Schmeidler’s 65th birthday . Routledge Publishers.

Quiggin J. (1982) A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 3(4): 323–343

CrossRef Sarin R., Wakker P. (1992) A simple axiomatization of nonadditive expected utility. Econometrica 60(6): 1255–1272

CrossRef Savage, L. (1954). The foundations of statistics (2nd ed., Vol. 1972). Wiley, New York: Dover Publications.

Schmeidler D. (1989) Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity. Econometrica 57: 571–587

CrossRef Siniscalchi, M. (2008). Vector expected utility and attitudes toward variation . Discussion papers, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.

Slovic P., Tversky A. (1974) Who accepts Savage’s axiom?. Behavioral Science 19: 368–373

CrossRef Tversky A., Kahneman D. (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5: 297–323

CrossRef Wakker P., Tversky A. (1993) An axiomatization of cumulative prospect theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7(2): 147–175

CrossRef Wu G. (1994) An empirical test of ordinal independence. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 9: 39–60

CrossRef Wu G., Gonzalez R. (1999a) Nonlinear decision weights in choice under uncertainty. Management Science 45(1): 74–85

CrossRef Wu, G., & Gonzalez, R. (1999b). Dominance violations and event spitting in decision under uncertainty. Unpublished Manuscript .

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2008