Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 57, Issue 2, pp 153–176 | Cite as

Reporting probabilistic expectations with dynamic uncertainty about possible distributions

  • Charles BellemareEmail author
  • Sabine Kröger
  • Kouamé Marius Sossou


We study how experimental subjects report subjective probability distributions in the presence of ambiguity characterized by uncertainty over a fixed set of possible probability distributions generating future outcomes. Subjects observe draws from the true but unknown probability distribution generating outcomes at the beginning of each period of the experiment and state at selected periods a) the likelihoods that each probability distribution in the set is the true distribution, and b) the likelihoods of future outcomes. We estimate heterogeneity of rules used to update uncertainty about the true distribution and rules used to report distributions of future outcomes. We find that approximately 65% of subjects report distributions by properly weighing the possible distributions using their expressed uncertainty over them, while 22% of subjects report distributions close to the distribution they perceive as most likely. We find significant heterogeneity in how subjects update their expressed uncertainty. On average, subjects tend to overweigh the importance of their prior uncertainty relative to new information, leading to ambiguity that is substantially more persistent than would be predicted using Bayes’ rule. Counterfactual simulations suggest that this persistence will likely hold in settings not covered by our experiment.


Measurement of expectations Belief updating Preferences under ambiguity 

JEL Classifications

D03 D84 C50 



The authors thank Peter Wakker for very helpful comments and suggestions.

Supplementary material

11166_2018_9291_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (307 kb)
(PDF 306 KB)


  1. Al-Nowaihi, A., & Dhami, S. (2010). Probability weighting functions. Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science.Google Scholar
  2. Armantier, O., & Treich, N. (2013). Eliciting beliefs: Proper scoring rule, incentives, stakes and hedging. European Economic Review, 62, 17–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baillon, A., Bleichrodt, H., Keskin, U., l’Haridon, O., Li, C. (2017). The effect of learning on ambiguity attitudes. Management Science, 64, 2181–2198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bellemare, C., Kröger, S., Van Soest, A. (2008). Measuring inequity aversion in a heterogeneous population using experimental decisions and subjective probabilities. Econometrica, 76, 815–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruine de Bruin, W., Fischbeck, P.S., Stiber, N.A., Fischhoff, B. (2002). What number is “fifty-fifty”?: Redistributing excessive 50% responses in elicited probabilities. Risk Analysis, 22, 713–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, M., Gilboa, I., Jaffray, J.-Y., Schmeidler, D. (2000). An experimental study of updating ambiguous beliefs. Risk Decision and Policy, 5, 123–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Delavande, A., & Manski, C.F. (2015). Using elicited choice probabilities in hypothetical elections to study decisions to vote. Electoral Studies, 38, 28–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dominiak, A., Duersch, P., Lefort, J.-P. (2012). A dynamic Ellsberg urn experiment. Games and Economic Behavior, 75, 625–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dominitz, J., & Manski, C.F. (2007). Expected equity returns and portfolio choice: Evidence from the health and retirement study. Journal of the European Economic Association, 5, 369–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dominitz, J., & Manski, C.F. (2011). Measuring and interpreting expectations of equity returns. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 26, 352–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edwards, W. (1982). Conservatism in human information processing (excerpted). In Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Engle-Warnick, J., & Laszlo, S. (2017). Learning-by-doing in an ambiguous environment. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 55, 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10, 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldstein, G.D., & Rothschild, D. (2014). Lay understanding of probability distributions. Judgment and Decision Making, 9, 1–14.Google Scholar
  16. Grether, D.M. (1980). Bayes rule as a descriptive model: The representativeness heuristic. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 95, 537–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grossman, Z., & Owens, D. (2012). An unlucky feeling: Overconfidence and noisy feedback. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 84, 510–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klibanoff, P., Marinacci, M., Mukerji, S. (2005). A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity. Econometrica, 73, 1849–1892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Manski, C.F. (2004). Measuring expectations. Econometrica, 72, 1329–1376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Manski, C., & Neri, C. (2013). First- and second-order subjective expectations in strategic decision-making: Experimental evidence. Games and Economic Behavior, 81, 232–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McClelland, A., & Bolder, F. (1994). The calibration of subjective probabilities: Theories and models 1980–1994. In Subjective probability (pp. 453–481). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Mobius, M.M., Niederle, M., Niehaus, P., Rosenblat, T.S. (2011). Managing self-confidence: Theory and experimental evidence, Tech. rep., National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  24. Moreno, O.M., & Rosokha, Y. (2016). Learning under compound risk vs. learning under ambiguity—an experiment. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 53, 137–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Neri, C. (2015). Eliciting beliefs in continuous-choice games: A double auction experiment. Experimental Economics, 18, 569–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Offerman, T., Sonnemans, J., van de Kuilen, G., Wakker, P. (2009). A truth serum for non-Bayesians: Correcting proper scoring rules for risk attitudes. Review of Economic Studies, 76, 1461–1489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Prelec, D. (1998). The probability weighting function. Econometrica, 66, 497–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Qiu, J., & Weitzel, U. (2016). Experimental evidence on valuation with multiple priors. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 53, 55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rappange, D.R., Brouwer, W.B., van Exel, J. (2016). A long life in good health: Subjective expectations regarding length and future healthrelated quality of life. The European Journal of Health Economics, 17(5), 577–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Trautmann, S., & van de Kuilen, G. (2015a). Ambiguity attitudes. In Wiley Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 89–116). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Trautmann, S., & van de Kuilen, G. (2015b). Belief elicitation: A horse race among truth serums. Economic Journal, 125, 2116–2135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. van Lenthe, J. (1993). ELI: An interactive elicitation technique for subjective probability distributions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 379–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wiswall, M., & Zafar, B. (2015). Determinants of college major choice: Identification using an information experiment. The Review of Economic Studies, 82, 791–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles Bellemare
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sabine Kröger
    • 1
  • Kouamé Marius Sossou
    • 1
  1. 1.Université LavalQuébecCanada

Personalised recommendations