Theory and Decision

, Volume 79, Issue 4, pp 667–688 | Cite as

An experimental study on the effect of ambiguity in a coordination game

  • David Kelsey
  • Sara le Roux


We report an experimental test of the influence of ambiguity on behaviour in a coordination game. We study the behaviour of subjects in the presence of ambiguity and attempt to determine whether they prefer to choose an ambiguity-safe option. We find that this strategy, which is not played in either Nash equilibrium or iterated dominance equilibrium, is indeed chosen quite frequently. This provides evidence that ambiguity-aversion influences behaviour in games. While the behaviour of the Row Player is consistent with randomising between her strategies, the Column Player shows a marked preference for avoiding ambiguity and choosing his ambiguity-safe strategy.


Ambiguity Choquet expected utility Coordination game  Ellsberg urn Experimental economics 



We would like to thank Dieter Balkenborg, Adam Dominiak, Peter Dursch, Jürgen Eichberger, Todd Kaplan, Joshua Teitelbaum, Horst Zank, participants in seminars in Bristol, Exeter, Manchester and RUD Paris and some anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions. We would like to thank Tim Miller for programming our Ellsberg Urn simulator.


  1. Becker, S., & Brownson, F. (1964). What price ambiguity? Or the role of ambiguity in decision making. Journal of Political Economy, 72, 62–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernasconi, M., & Loomes, G. (1992). Failures of the reduction principle in an Ellsberg type problem. Theory and Decision, 32, 77–100.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bohnet, I., Greig, F., Herrmann, B., & Zeckhauser, R. (2008). Betrayal aversion: Evidence from Brazil, China, Oman, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United States. American Economic Review, 98(1), 294–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Camerer, C., Ho, T.-H., & Chong, J.-K. (2004). A cognitive hierarchy model of games. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(3), 861–898.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Camerer, C. F., & Weber, M. (1992). Recent developments in modelling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 325–370.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chateauneuf, A., Eichberger, J., & Grant, S. (2007). Choice under uncertainty with the best and worst in mind: NEO-additive capacities. Journal of Economic Theory, 137, 538–567.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Colman, A., & Pulford, B. (2007). Ambiguous games: Evidence for strategic ambiguity aversion. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1083–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Di Mauro, C., & Castro, M. F. (2011). Kindness confusion or... ambiguity. Experimental Economics, 14, 611–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dow, J., & Werlang, S. R. C. (1994). Nash equilibrium under uncertainty: Breaking down backward induction. Journal of Economic Theory, 64, 305–324.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eichberger, J., & Kelsey, D. (2000). Non-additive beliefs and strategic equilibria. Games and Economic Behavior, 30, 183–215.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eichberger, J., & Kelsey, D. (2002). Strategic complements, substitutes and ambiguity: The implications for public goods. Journal of Economic Theory, 106, 436–466.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eichberger, J., & Kelsey, D. (2014). Optimism and pessimism in games. International Economic Review, 55, 483–505.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eichberger, J., Kelsey, D., & Schipper, B. (2008). Granny versus game theorist: Ambiguity in experimental games. Theory and Decision, 64, 333–362.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eichberger, J., Kelsey, D., & Schipper, B. (2009). Ambiguity and social interaction. Oxford Economic Papers, 61, 355–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (1989). Maxmin expected utility with a non-unique prior. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 18, 141–153.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ivanov, A. (2011). Attitudes to ambiguity in one-shot normal form games: An experimental study. Games and Economic Behavior, 71, 366–394.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kelsey, D., & S. le Roux (2013). Dragon slaying and dyke building—How does ambiguity affect individual behaviour?, SSRN:
  18. Kilka, M., & Weber, M. (2001). What determines the shape of the probability weighting function under uncertainty? Management Science, 47, 1712–1726.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klibanoff, P. (1993). Uncertainty, decision and normal form games, working paper. Evanston: Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  20. Lo, K. C. (1996). Equilibrium in beliefs under uncertainty. Journal of Economic Theory, 71, 443–484.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marinacci, M. (2002). Probabilistic sophistication and multiple priors. Econometrica, 70, 755–764.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Savage, L. J. (1954). Foundations of statistics. New York: Wiley.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Schmeidler, D. (1989). Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity. Econometrica, 57, 571–587.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yates, J. F., & Zukowski, L. (1976). Characterisation of ambiguity in decision making. Behavioral Science, 21, 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of ExeterExeterEngland
  2. 2.Department of Accounting, Finance & EconomicsOxford Brookes UniversityOxfordEngland

Personalised recommendations