Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 113–132 | Cite as

Assessing multiple prior models of behaviour under ambiguity



The recent spate of theoretical models of behaviour under ambiguity can be partitioned into two sets: those involving multiple priors and those not involving multiple priors. This paper provides an experimental investigation into the first set. Using an appropriate experimental interface we examine the fitted and predictive power of the various theories. We first estimate subject-by-subject, and then estimate and predict using a mixture model over the contending theories. The individual estimates suggest that 24% of our 149 subjects have behaviour consistent with Expected Utility, 56% with the Smooth Model, 11% with Rank Dependent Expected Utility and 9% with the Alpha Model; these figures are close to the mixing proportions obtained from the mixture estimates where the respective posterior probabilities of each of them being of the various types are 25%, 50%, 20% and 5%; and using the predictions 22%, 53%, 22% and 3%. The Smooth model appears the best.


Alpha model Ambiguity Expected utility Mixture models Rank dependent expected utility Smooth model 

JEL Classification

D81 C91 C23 


  1. Abdellaoui, M., Baillon, A., Placido, L., & Wakker, P. (2011). The rich domain of uncertainty: source functions and their experimental implementation. American Economic Review, 101, 695–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahn, D.S., Choi, S., Gale, D., Kariv, S. (2010). Estimating ambiguity aversion in a portfolio choice experiment. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  3. Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2006). Elicitation using multiple price list formats. Experimental Economics, 9, 383–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersen, S., Fountain, J., Harrison, G.W., Rutström, E.E. (2009). Estimating aversion to uncertainty. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  5. Baillon, A. (2008). Eliciting subjective probabilities through exchangeable events: an advantage and a limitation. Decision Analysis, 5, 76–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Camerer, C. (1995). Individual decision making. In J. Kagel, A. Roth (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics (pp. 587–703). Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Camerer, C., & Weber, M. (1992). Recent development in modelling preferences: uncertainty and ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 325–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conte, A., Hey, J. D., & Moffatt, P. G. (2011). Mixture models of choice under risk. Journal of Econometrics, 162(1), 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gajdos, T., Hayashi, T., Tallon, J. M., & Vergnaud, J. C. (2008). Attitude toward imprecise information. Journal of Economic Theory, 140, 27–65.Google Scholar
  10. Ghirardato, P., Maccheroni, F., & Marinacci, M. (2004). Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude. Journal of Economic Theory, 118, 133–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (1989). Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 18, 141–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greiner, B. (2004). The online recruitment system ORSEE 2.0—A guide for the organization of experiments in economics. University of Cologne Discussion Paper (
  13. Halevy, Y. (2007). Ellsberg revisited: an experimental study. Econometrica, 75(2), 503–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hey, J.D., & Pace, M. (2011). The explanatory and predictive power of non two-stage-probability theories of decision making under ambiguity. University of York Department of Economics and Related Studies Discussion Paper 11/22.Google Scholar
  15. Hey, J. D., Lotito, G., & Maffioletti, A. (2010). The descriptive and predictive adequacy of theories of decision making under uncertainty/ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 41(2), 81–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 67, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Klibanoff, P., Marinaci, M., & Mukerji, S. (2005). A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity. Econometrica, 73, 1849–1892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Moffat, P. G., & Peters, S. A. (2001). Testing for the presence of a tremble in economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 4, 221–228.Google Scholar
  19. Preminger, A., & Wettstein, D. (2005). Using the penalized likelihood method for model selection with nuisance parameters present only under the alternative: an application to switching regression models. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 26(5), 715–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Quiggin, J. (1982). A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3, 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schmeidler, D. (1989). Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity. Econometrica, 57, 571–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Segal, U. (1987). The Ellsberg Paradox and risk aversion: an anticipated utility approach. International Economic Review, 28, 175–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wilcox, N.T. (2007). Predicting risky choices out of context: A Monte Carlo study. University of Houston Working Paper.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and Related StudiesUniversity of YorkYorkUK
  2. 2.Westminster Business School, University of WestminsterLondonUK
  3. 3.Strategic Interaction Group, Max Planck Institute of EconomicsJenaGermany

Personalised recommendations