scholarly journals Learning about the Ellsberg Paradox reduces, but does not abolish, ambiguity aversion

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. e0228782 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruonan Jia ◽  
Ellen Furlong ◽  
Sean Gao ◽  
Laurie R. Santos ◽  
Ifat Levy
Author(s):  
Kerry E. Back

The Allais and Ellsberg paradoxes are presented. Various generalizations of expected utility motivated by these and other paradoxes are discussed, including betweenness preferences, rank‐dependent preferences, multiple prior max‐min preferences, and prospect theory. For betweenness preferences, which include weighted utility and disappointment aversion, an investor’s marginal utility is proportional to a stochastic discount factor. Disappointment averse utility and rank‐dependent utility have first‐order risk aversion. Multiple prior max‐min utility is one way to accomodate the Ellsberg paradox (ambiguity aversion or Knightian uncertainty). The dynamic consistency of updating multiple priors is discussed.


Author(s):  
Sandro Sozzo

Abstract We provide here a general mathematical framework to model attitudes towards ambiguity which uses the formalism of quantum theory as a “purely mathematical formalism, detached from any physical interpretation”. We show that the quantum-theoretic framework enables modelling of the Ellsberg paradox, but it also successfully applies to more concrete human decision-making tests involving financial, managerial and medical decisions. In particular, we elaborate a mathematical representation of various empirical studies which reveal that attitudes of managers towards uncertainty shift from ambiguity seeking to ambiguity aversion, and viceversa, thus exhibiting hope effects and fear effects. The present framework provides a promising direction towards the development of a unified theory of decisions in the presence of uncertainty.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document