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

- 369 Downloads
- 5 Citations

## Abstract

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.

### Keywords

Ambiguity Choquet expected utility Coordination game Ellsberg urn Experimental economics## Notes

### Acknowledgments

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.

### References

- 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 - Bernasconi, M., & Loomes, G. (1992). Failures of the reduction principle in an Ellsberg type problem.
*Theory and Decision*,*32*, 77–100.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - Camerer, C., Ho, T.-H., & Chong, J.-K. (2004). A cognitive hierarchy model of games.
*Quarterly Journal of Economics*,*119*(3), 861–898.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Camerer, C. F., & Weber, M. (1992). Recent developments in modelling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity.
*Journal of Risk and Uncertainty*,*5*, 325–370.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Colman, A., & Pulford, B. (2007). Ambiguous games: Evidence for strategic ambiguity aversion.
*Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology*,*60*, 1083–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Di Mauro, C., & Castro, M. F. (2011). Kindness confusion or... ambiguity.
*Experimental Economics*,*14*, 611–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Dow, J., & Werlang, S. R. C. (1994). Nash equilibrium under uncertainty: Breaking down backward induction.
*Journal of Economic Theory*,*64*, 305–324.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Eichberger, J., & Kelsey, D. (2000). Non-additive beliefs and strategic equilibria.
*Games and Economic Behavior*,*30*, 183–215.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Eichberger, J., & Kelsey, D. (2002). Strategic complements, substitutes and ambiguity: The implications for public goods.
*Journal of Economic Theory*,*106*, 436–466.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Eichberger, J., & Kelsey, D. (2014). Optimism and pessimism in games.
*International Economic Review*,*55*, 483–505.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Eichberger, J., Kelsey, D., & Schipper, B. (2008). Granny versus game theorist: Ambiguity in experimental games.
*Theory and Decision*,*64*, 333–362.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Eichberger, J., Kelsey, D., & Schipper, B. (2009). Ambiguity and social interaction.
*Oxford Economic Papers*,*61*, 355–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (1989). Maxmin expected utility with a non-unique prior.
*Journal of Mathematical Economics*,*18*, 141–153.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Ivanov, A. (2011). Attitudes to ambiguity in one-shot normal form games: An experimental study.
*Games and Economic Behavior*,*71*, 366–394.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Kelsey, D., & S. le Roux (2013). Dragon slaying and dyke building—How does ambiguity affect individual behaviour?, SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2320519.
- Kilka, M., & Weber, M. (2001). What determines the shape of the probability weighting function under uncertainty?
*Management Science*,*47*, 1712–1726.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Klibanoff, P. (1993).
*Uncertainty, decision and normal form games, working paper*. Evanston: Northwestern University.Google Scholar - Lo, K. C. (1996). Equilibrium in beliefs under uncertainty.
*Journal of Economic Theory*,*71*, 443–484.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Marinacci, M. (2002). Probabilistic sophistication and multiple priors.
*Econometrica*,*70*, 755–764.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Savage, L. J. (1954).
*Foundations of statistics*. New York: Wiley.MATHGoogle Scholar - Schmeidler, D. (1989). Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity.
*Econometrica*,*57*, 571–587.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Yates, J. F., & Zukowski, L. (1976). Characterisation of ambiguity in decision making.
*Behavioral Science*,*21*, 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar