Definitions of ambiguous events and the smooth ambiguity model
We examine a variety of preference-based definitions of ambiguous events in the context of the smooth ambiguity model. We first consider the definition proposed in Klibanoff et al. (Econometrica 73(6):1849–1892, 2005) based on the classic Ellsberg two-urn paradox (Ellsberg Q J Econ 75:643–669, 1961) and show that it satisfies several desirable properties. We then compare this definition with those of Nehring (Math Soc Sci 38(2):197–213, 1999), Epstein and Zhang (Econometrica 69:265–306, 2001), Zhang (Econ Theory 20:159–181, 2002), and Ghirardato and Marinacci (J Econ Theory 102:251–289, 2002). Within the smooth ambiguity model, we show that Ghirardato and Marinacci (J Econ Theory 102:251–289, 2002) would identify the same set of ambiguous and unambiguous events as our definition while Epstein and Zhang (Econometrica 69:265–306, 2001) and Zhang (Econ Theory 20:159–181, 2002) would yield a different classification. Moreover, we discuss and formally identify two key sources of the differences compared to Epstein and Zhang (Econometrica 69:265–306, 2001) and Zhang (Econ Theory 20:159–181, 2002). The more interesting source is that these two definitions can confound non-constant ambiguity attitude and the ambiguity of an event.
KeywordsAmbiguity Uncertainty Knightian uncertainty Ambiguity aversion Uncertainty aversion Ellsberg paradox
JEL ClassificationD800 D810
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Billingsley P.: Probability and Measure. 2nd ed. John Wiley, New York (1986)Google Scholar
- Cerreia-Vioglio S., Ghirardato P., Maccheroni F., Marinacci M., Siniscalchi M.: Rational preferences under ambiguity. Econ Theory (2011) (this issue)Google Scholar
- Kreps D.: Notes on the Theory of Choice. Westview Press, Boulder and London (1988)Google Scholar
- Nehring, K.: Is it possible to define subjective probabilities in purely behavioral terms? A comment on Epstein-Zhang (2001). In: Discussion Paper 0067, Economics Working Papers. Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science (2006)Google Scholar