Measuring Ambiguity Preferences

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Preliminary and incomplete -do not cite or circulate Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may AbstractAmbiguity aversion has shown to be economically relevant and has been proposed as an explanation for many phenomena in economics and finance. While the literature has suggested a large variety of elicitation methods to measure ambiguity preferences, their consistency and reliability it is rarely evaluated. This is the first study that systematically analyses the consistency of individual ambiguity preferences elicited using a variety of incentivized tasks, non-incentivized thought experiments and survey questions. We find a high degree of aggregate consistency across elicitation methods, but large discrepancies in degrees of individual consistency in pair-wise tasks comparisons. Finally, the study identifies a set of non-incentivized tasks that predict ambiguity attitudes elicited experimentally which may serve as a viable alternative when running laboratory experiments is unfeasible.JEL Classification: C81, C83, C91, D81

Motor Decision-Making as a Common Denominator in Motor Pathology and a Possible Rehabilitation Target

“…7,[17][18][19][20][21][22] Value-based decision processes have received a lot of attention in the field of NE, which provides a set of methods to assess individual preference characteristics. 23 It has already been shown that understanding these individual preferences can be used to enhance existing models of motor control (MDM). 8,18,19 MDM can be represented using a fundamental NE principle of utility maximization, where utility is a concept used to describe behavior in value-based choice tasks (for dictionary see Table 1).…”

What’s there in your future: Can Episodic Specificity Induction impact episodic future thinking specificity, uncertainty attitude, hopelessness, worry, and affect?

“…Therefore, in the current study, uncertainty referred to ambiguous scenarios. Based on Ellsberg's paradigm, Cavatorta and Schröder (2014) have developed the Dynamic Ellsberg Urn Task, where participants complete several rounds of selections between the risky and the ambiguous urns, but the distribution statistics in the risky urn changes each round according to participants' preceding response. For example, if a participant chooses the 50:50 risky option to begin with, the number of balls with reward will then decrease in the risky option; if the participant chooses the ambiguous option, the number will then increase.…”

“…For the purpose of this study, the Dynamic Ellsberg Social Task (DEST) was developed to measure participants' uncertainty attitude. It is a social variation of the original Dynamic Ellsberg Urn Task (Cavatorta & Schröder, 2014; Appendix F). The original task measures preference for external uncertainty determined purely by chance, but for the context of this study, this task was adapted to reflect real-lifeoriented social situations in which participants must make decisions under uncertainty.…”

“…3. It must be something that occurs in a particular place and within the space of a day at most; The paradigm of the Dynamic Ellsberg Social Task was developed from the existing Dynamic Ellsberg Urn Task (Cavatorta & Schröder, 2014). Find below the original task.…”

Auditors' Response to Different Reporting Environments: Experimental Evidence From the Quantity and Quality of Auditors' Evidence Demands in China

“…Specifically, risk aversion is rated on 10-point scales from "not at all willing to take risks" (1) to "very willing to take risks" (10). Based on instruments of Cavatorta and Schröder (2016), ambiguity tolerance is measured by using four statements indicating the extent to which you agree or disagree with them on a scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree): (1) choice when the outcome is uncertain. Other variables we measure and report in the additional analyses include participants' qualification, their position, age, and gender.…”