Search

Abstract: Many real-life decisions have to be taken on the basis of probability judgements of which the decision maker is not entirely sure. This paper develops a decision rule for taking such decisions, which incorporates the decision makerʼs confidence in his probability judgements according to the following maxim: the larger the stakes involved in a decision, the more confidence is required in a probability judgement for it to play a role in the decision. A formal representation of the decision makerʼs confidence is proposed and used to formulate a family of decision models conforming to this maxim. A natural member of this family is studied in detail. It is structurally simpler than other recent models of decision under uncertainty, which may make it easier to apply to practical decisions, whilst being axiomatically sound, permitting the separation of beliefs and tastes, and allowing comparative statics analysis of attitudes to choosing in the absence of confidence. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: We model a common pool resource game under environmental uncertainty, where individuals in a symmetric group face the dilemma of sharing a common resource. Each player chooses a consumption level and obtains a corresponding share of that resource, but if total consumption exceeds a sustainable level then the resource deteriorates and all players are worse-off. We consider the effect of uncertainty about the sustainable resource size on the outcome of this game. Assuming a general dynamic for resource deterioration, we study the effect of increased ambiguity (i.e., uncertain probabilities pertaining to the common resourceʼs sustainable size). We show that whereas increased risk may lead to more selfish behavior (i.e., to more consumption), increased ambiguity may have the opposite effect. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: This paper presents a general technique for comparing the concavity of different utility functions when probabilities need not be known. It generalizes: (a) Yaariʼs comparisons of risk aversion by not requiring identical beliefs; (b) Kreps and Porteusʼ information-timing preference by not requiring known probabilities; (c) Klibanoff, Marinacci, and Mukerjiʼs smooth ambiguity aversion by not using subjective probabilities (which are not directly observable) and by not committing to (violations of) dynamic decision principles; (d) comparative smooth ambiguity aversion by not requiring identical second-order subjective probabilities. Our technique completely isolates the empirical meaning of utility. It thus sheds new light on the descriptive appropriateness of utility to model risk and ambiguity attitudes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: A game-theoretic framework that allows for explicitly randomized strategies is used to study the effect of ambiguity aversion on equilibrium outcomes. The notions of “independent strategies” as well as of “common priors” are amended to render them applicable to games in which players lack probabilistic sophistication. Within this framework the equilibrium predictions of two-player games with ambiguity-averse and with ambiguity-neutral players are observationally equivalent. This equivalence result does not extend to the case of games with more than two players. A translation of the concept of equilibrium in beliefs to the context of ambiguity aversion yields substantially different predictions – even for the case with just two players. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: We demonstrate that people can adopt a favorable view of ambiguous risks relative to ones with known probabilities, contrary to the usual attitude of ambiguity aversion, when doing so permits justification for unfair behavior. We use binary dictator games involving a choice between a relatively equitable allocation and an “unfair” allocation that is both less generous and makes the recipient''s payment dependent on a lottery. Dictators choose the unfair option more frequently when the recipient''s allocation depends on an ambiguous lottery than on a lottery with a known probability — even though the objective distributions of outcomes are identical under the two kinds of lotteries. Dictators'' estimates of the expected value of the recipients'' allocations are inflated under ambiguity, indicating that dictators form self-serving beliefs about ambiguity. Finally, increased unfair behavior under ambiguity is extinguished when dictators are constrained by their own initial unmotivated, and negative, attitudes towards ambiguity. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]