Advertisement

Theory and Decision

, Volume 71, Issue 1, pp 81–109 | Cite as

An experimental investigation of imprecision attitude and its relation with risk attitude and impatience

  • Michèle Cohen
  • Jean-Marc TallonEmail author
  • Jean-Christophe Vergnaud
Article

Abstract

We report in this article the result of three experiments on risk, ambiguity, and time attitude. The first two differed by the population considered (students vs. general population) while the third one used a different protocol and concerned students and portfolio managers. We find quite a lot of heterogeneity at the individual level. Of principal interest was the elicitation of risk, time, and ambiguity attitudes and the relationship among these (model free) measures. We find that on the student population, there is essentially no correlation. A non-negligible fraction of the population behaves in an extremely cautious manner in the risk and ambiguity domain. When we drop this population from the sample, the correlation between our measures is also non-significant. We also raise three questions linked to measurement of ambiguity attitudes that come out from our data sets.

Keywords

Experiments Risk aversion Impatience Imprecision aversion 

JEL Classification

C90 D81 C91 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abdellaoui, M., Baillon, A., Placido, L., & Wakker, P. (2009). The rich domain of uncertainty. Discussion paper, Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University (forthcoming American Economic Review).Google Scholar
  2. Ahn, D., Choi, S., Gale, D., & Kariv, S. (2009). Estimating ambiguity aversion in a portfolio choice experiment. Working paper.Google Scholar
  3. Andersen, S., Fountain, J., Harrison, G., & Rutstrom, E. (2009). Estimating aversion to uncertainty, mimeo.Google Scholar
  4. Andersen S., Harrison G., Lau M., Rutstrom E. (2008) Eliciting risk and time prefrences. Econometrica 76: 583–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Attema, A., Bleichrodt, H., Rohde, K., & Wakker, P. (2009). Time-tradeoff sequences for analyzing discounting and time inconsistency. Discussion paper.Google Scholar
  6. Barsky R., Juster T., Kimball M., Shapiro M. (1997) Preference parameters and individual heterogeneity: An experimental approach in the health and retirement study. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112: 537–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burks, S., Carpenter, J., Gotte, L., & Rustichini, A. (2008). Cognitive skills explain economic prefrences, strategic behavior, and job attachment. Discussion paper 3609, IZA.Google Scholar
  8. Cabantous L. (2007) Ambiguity aversion in the field of insurance: Insurer’s attitude to imprecise and conflicting probability estimates. Theory and Decision 62: 219–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chakravarty S., Roy J. (2009) Recursive expected utility and the separation of attitudes towards risk and ambiguity: An experimental study. Theory and Decision 66(3): 199–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chow C., Sarin R. (2002) Known, unknown and unknowable uncertainties. Theory and Decision 52: 127–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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: 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collard, F., Mukerji, S., Sheppard, K., & Tallon, J.-M. (2009). Ambiguity and the historical equity premium. mimeoGoogle Scholar
  13. Curley S., Yates F. (1985) The center and range of the probability interval as factors affecting ambiguity preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 36: 272–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Di Mauro C., Maffioletti A. (2004) Attitudes to risk and attitudes to uncertainty: Experimental evidence. Applied Economics 36: 357–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., & Sunde U. (2008). Are risk aversion and impatience related to cognitive ability? Discussion paper 6852, CEPR.Google Scholar
  16. Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. (2005). Individual risk attitudes: New evidence from a large, representative, experimentally validated survey. Discussion paper 1730, IZA.Google Scholar
  17. Eckel, C., & Grossman, P. (2008). Men, women and risk aversion: Experimental results. In C. Plott & V. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economic results (Vol. 1, Chap. 57). Amsterdam: North HollandGoogle Scholar
  18. Fox C., Tversky A. (1995) Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance. Quarterly Journal of Economics 110: 585–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gajdos T., Hayashi T., Tallon J.-M., Vergnaud J.-C. (2008) Attitude toward imprecise information. Journal of Economic Theory 140: 23–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilboa I., Schmeidler D. (1989) Maxmin expected utility with a non-unique prior. Journal of Mathematical Economics 18: 141–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guiso, L., & Jappelli, T. (2008). The role of intuition and reasoning in driving aversion to risk, aversion to ambiguity and regret. mimeoGoogle Scholar
  22. Guiso L., Paiella M. (2008) Risk aversion, wealth, and background risk. Journal of the European Economic Association 36: 1109–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harrison G., Lau M., Rutstrom E. (2007) Estimating risk attitudes in Denmark: A field experiment. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 109: 341–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harrison G., Lau M., Williams M. (2002) Estimating individual discount rates in Denmark: A field experiment. American Economic Review 92: 1606–1617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hayashi, T., & Wada, R. (2008). Choice with imprecise information: An experimental approach. Theory and Decision. doi: 10.1007/s11238-008-9119-x.
  26. Hey, J., Lotito, G., & Maffioletti, A. (2008). The descriptive and predictive adequacy of theories of decision making under uncertainty/ambiguity. mimeo.Google Scholar
  27. Ju, N., Miao, J. (2008). Ambiguity, learning, and asset returns. Boston University. mimeoGoogle Scholar
  28. Klibanoff, P., Marinacci, M., & Mukerji, S. (2005). A smooth model of decision making under uncertainy. Econometrica (6), 1849–1892.Google Scholar
  29. Lauriola M., Levin I. (2001) Relating individual differences in attitude toward ambiguity to risky choices. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 14: 107–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Maccheroni F., Marinacci M., Rustichini A. (2005) Ambiguity aversion, robustness, and the variational representation of preferences. Econometrica 74: 1447–1498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Potamites, E., & Zhang, B. (2007). Measuring ambiguity attitudes: A field experiment among small-scale stock investors in China New York University. mimeo.Google Scholar
  32. Roux, N. (2008). The attitude toward probabilities of portfolio managers: An experimental study. Working paper 2008-73, Centre d’Economie de la Sorbonne—U. Paris I.Google Scholar
  33. Tanaka, T., Camerer, C., & Nguyen, Q. (2008). Risk and time preferences: Linking experimental and household survey data from Vietnam. Working paper.Google Scholar
  34. van Praag B., Booij A. (2009) A simultaneous approach to the estimation of risk and time preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 70(1–2): 374–388Google Scholar
  35. von Gaudecker, H.-M., van Soest, A., & Wengstrom, E. (2009). Heterogeneity in risky choice behaviour in a broad population. Discussion paper 4022, IZA.Google Scholar
  36. Wakker P., Deneffe D. (1996) Eliciting von Neumann-Morgenstern utilities when probabilities are distorded or unknown. Management Science 42: 1131–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yates F., Zukowski L. (1976) Characterization of ambiguity in decision making. Behavioral Science 21: 19–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michèle Cohen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jean-Marc Tallon
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Jean-Christophe Vergnaud
    • 2
  1. 1.Paris School of EconomicsU. Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne, CNRSParisFrance
  2. 2.Centre d’économie de la Sorbonne, CNRSParisFrance

Personalised recommendations