Aggregating imprecise or conflicting beliefs: An experimental investigation using modern ambiguity theories

Article English OPEN
Baillon, A. ; Cabantous, L. ; Wakker, P. P. (2012)
  • Publisher: Springer Nature
  • Journal: Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
  • Related identifiers: doi: 10.1007/s11166-012-9140-x
  • Subject: HD61 | Accounting | Economics and Econometrics | Finance

textabstractTwo experiments show that violations of expected utility due to ambiguity, found in general decision experiments, also affect belief aggregation. Hence we use modern ambiguity theories to analyze belief aggregation, thus obtaining more refined and empirically more valid results than traditional theories can provide. We can now confirm more reliably that conflicting (heterogeneous) beliefs where some agents express certainty are processed differently than informationally equivalent imprecise homogeneous beliefs. We can also investigate new phenomena related to ambiguity. For instance, agents who express certainty receive extra weight (a cognitive effect related to ambiguity-generated insensitivity) and generate extra preference value (source preference; a motivational effect related to ambiguity aversion). Hence, incentive compatible belief elicitations that prevent manipulation are especially warranted when agents express certainty. For multiple prior theories of ambiguity, our findings imply that the same prior probabilities can be treated differently in different contexts, suggesting an interest of corresponding generalizations.
  • References (32)
    32 references, page 1 of 4

    2 See Wallsten, Forsyth, & Budescu (1983). Camerer and Weber (1992), Chow and Sarin (2001), Ellsberg (1961), Ho, Keller & Keltyka (2002, 2005), and Roca, Hogarth, & Maule (2006) studied attitudes to varying degrees of imprecise probabilities. 4 See Clemen and Winkler (1986), Cooke (1991), Curley & Yates (1989), Viscusi et al.

    (1994), and Wallsten et al. (1997). For a discussion see Larrick and Soll (2006). Underlying theoretical models are in Gajdos et al. (2008) and Kopylov (2008).

    Fox, Craig R. & Amos Tversky (1998) “A Belief-Based Account of Decision under Uncertainty,” Management Science 44, 879-895.

    Gajdos, Thibault, Takashi Hayashi, Jean-Marc Tallon, & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud (2008) “Attitude towards Imprecise Information,” Journal of Economic Theory 140, 27-65.

    Gajdos, Thibault & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud (2011) “Decisions with Conflicting and Imprecise Information,” mimeo.

    Gayer, Gabi (2010) “Perception of Probabilities in Situations of Risk; A Case Based Approach,” Games and Economic Behavior 68, 130-143.

    Gilboa, Itzhak (1987) “Expected Utility with Purely Subjective Non-Additive Probabilities,” Journal of Mathematical Economics 16, 65-88.

    Gilboa, Itzhak & David Schmeidler (1989) “Maxmin Expected Utility with a NonUnique Prior,” Journal of Mathematical Economics 18, 141-153.

    Goldstein, William M. & Hillel J. Einhorn (1987) “Expression Theory and the Preference Reversal Phenomena,” Psychological Review 94, 236-254.

    Gul, Faruk (1991) “A Theory of Disappointment Aversion,” Econometrica 59, 667- 686.

  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark