Strategic ambiguity and decision-making: an experimental study
We conducted a set of experiments to compare the effect of ambiguity in single-person decisions and games. Our results suggest that ambiguity has a bigger impact in games than in ball and urn problems. We find that ambiguity has the opposite effect in games of strategic substitutes and complements. This confirms a theoretical prediction made by Eichberger and Kelsey (J Econ Theory 106:436–466, 2002). In addition, we note that subjects’ ambiguity attitudes appear to be context dependent: ambiguity loving in single-person decisions and ambiguity averse in games. This is consistent with the findings of Kelsey and le Roux (Theory Decis 79:667–688, 2015).
KeywordsAmbiguity Choquet expected utility Strategic complements Strategic substitutes Ellsberg urn
- Calford, E. (2016) Uncertainty aversion in game theory: Experimental evidence. Working paper UBC.Google Scholar
- Choquet, G. (1953-4). Theory of capacities, Annales Institut Fourier, 5, 131–295.Google Scholar
- Di Mauro, C., & Castro, M. F. (2011). Kindness confusion or... ambiguity? Experimental Economics, 14(4), 611–633.Google Scholar
- Eliaz, K., & Ortoleva, P. (2011). A variation on Ellsberg, SSRN eLibrary. http://ssrn.com/paper=1761445.
- Greiner, B. (2016). Strategic uncertainty aversion in bargaining: Experimental evidence. Working paper, University of New South Wales.Google Scholar
- Harsanyi, J. C., & Selten, R. (1988). A general theory of equilibrium selection in games. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Keck, S., Diecidue, E., & Budescu, D. V. (2012). Group decisions under ambiguity: Convergence to neutrality. SSRN eLibrary.Google Scholar
- Keller, L. R., Sarin, R. K., & Sounderpandian, J. (2007). An examination of ambiguity aversion: Are two heads better than one? Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 390–397.Google Scholar
- Trautmann, S. T., & van de Kuilen, G. (2016). Ambiguity Attitudes. The Wiley Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making.Google Scholar