Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T20:14:33.119Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TWO OUT OF THREE AIN'T BAD: A COMMENT ON “THE AMBIGUITY AVERSION LITERATURE: A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

Marciano Siniscalchi
Marciano Siniscalchi*
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Al-Najjar and Weinstein (2009) propose to scrutinize the implications of recent theories of ambiguity in dynamic settings. They conclude that such implications are so unreasonable as to cast doubts on the legitimacy of the theories under consideration. The present paper argues that the seemingly unreasonable implications highlighted by Al-Najjar and Weinstein can be understood as the result of basic trade-offs that arise naturally in the presence of ambiguity. In particular, Al-Najjar and Weinstein are uncomfortable with the possibility that an ambiguity-averse individual may reject freely available information; however, this phenomenon simply reflects a trade-off between the intrinsic value of information, which is positive even in the presence of ambiguity, and the value of commitment.

Type
Essay
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 25 , Issue 3: Economics and Philosophy on Ambiguity Aversion , November 2009 , pp. 335 - 356
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Al-Najjar, N. and Weinstein, J.. 2009. The ambiguity aversion literature: a critical assessment. Economics and Philosophy, 25.Google Scholar
Ellsberg, D. 1961. Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics 75: 643–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, L. and Le Breton, M.. 1993. Dynamically consistent beliefs must be Bayesian. Journal of Economic Theory 61: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, L. and Schneider, M.. 2001. Recursive multiple-priors. Journal of Economic Theory 113: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, L. and Zhang, J.. 2001. Subjective probabilities on subjectively unambiguous events. Econometrica 69: 265–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghirardato, P. 2002. Revisiting Savage in a conditional world. Economic Theory 20: 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghirardato, P.Maccheroni, F. and Marinacci, M.. 2003. Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude. Journal of Economic Theory 118: 133–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilboa, I. and Schmeidler, D.. 1989. Maxmin expected utility with a non-unique prior. Journal of Mathematical Economics 18: 141–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gul, F. and Pesendorfer, W.. 2001. Temptation and self-control. Econometrica 69 (6): 1403–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gul, F. and Pesendorfer, W.. 2005. The Revealed Preference theory of changing tastes. Review of Economic Studies 72 (2): 429–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, P. 1988. Consequentialist foundations for expected utility. Theory and Decision 25: 25–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, P. 1989. Consistent plans, consequentialism, and expected utility. Econometrica 57: 1445–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanany, E. and Klibanoff, P.. 2007a. Updating uncertainty averse preferences. mimeo, Kellogg Graduate School.Google Scholar
Hanany, E. and Klibanoff, P.. 2007b. Updating preferences with multiple priors. Theoretical Economics 2 (3): 261–98.Google Scholar
Hey, J., Lotito, G. and Maffioletti, A.. 2008. The descriptive and predictive adequacy of theories of decision making under uncertainty/ambiguity. Technical report, Department of Economics, University of York.Google Scholar
Karni, E. and Safra, Z.. 1989. Dynamic consistency, revelations in auctions and the structure of preferences. Review of Economic Studies 56: 421–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karni, E. and Schmeidler, D.. 1991. Atemporal dynamic consistency and expected utility theory. Journal of Economic Theory 54: 401–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klibanoff, P., Marinacci, M. and Mukerji, S.. 2005. A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity. Econometrica 73 (6): 1849–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreps, D. and Porteus, E.. 1978. Temporal resolution of uncertainty and dynamic choice theory. Econometrica 46: 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machina, M. 1989. Dynamic consistency and non–expected utility models of choice under uncertainty. Journal of Economic Literature 27: 1622–68.Google Scholar
Machina, M. and Schmeidler, D.. 1992. A more robust definition of subjective probability. Econometrica 60: 745–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, L. 1954. The foundations of statistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Schmeidler, D. 1989. Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity. Econometrica 57: 571–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, U. 1990. Two-stage lotteries without the reduction axiom. Econometrica 58: 349–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siniscalchi, M. 2009. Dynamic choice under ambiguity. Technical Report 1430, Northwestern University CMS-EMS Discussion Paper.Google Scholar
Strotz, R. 1955–56. Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximization. Review of Economic Studies 23: 165–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar