If It Is Surely Better, Do It More? Implications for Preferences Under Ambiguity

Consider a canonical problem in choice under uncertainty: choosing from a convex feasible set consisting of all (Anscombe–Aumann) mixtures of two acts f and g, [Formula: see text]. We propose a preference condition, monotonicity in optimal mixtures, which says that surely improving the act f (in the sense of weak dominance) makes the optimal weight(s) on f weakly higher. We use a stylized model of a sales agent reacting to incentives to illustrate the tight connection between monotonicity in optimal mixtures and a monotone comparative static of interest in applications. We then explore more generally the relation between this condition and preferences exhibiting ambiguity-sensitive behavior as in the classic Ellsberg paradoxes. We find that monotonicity in optimal mixtures and ambiguity aversion (even only local to an event) are incompatible for a large and popular class of ambiguity-sensitive preferences (the c-linearly biseparable class. This implies, for example, that maxmin expected utility preferences are consistent with monotonicity in optimal mixtures if and only if they are subjective expected utility preferences. This incompatibility is not between monotonicity in optimal mixtures and ambiguity aversion per se. For example, we show that smooth ambiguity preferences can satisfy both properties as long as they are not too ambiguity averse. Our most general result, applying to an extremely broad universe of preferences, shows a sense in which monotonicity in optimal mixtures places upper bounds on the intensity of ambiguity-averse behavior. This paper was accepted by Manel Baucells, decision analysis.

Full Implementation under Ambiguity

This paper introduces the maxmin expected utility framework into the problem of fully implementing a social choice set as ambiguous equilibria. Our model incorporates the Bayesian framework and the Wald-type maxmin preferences as special cases and provides insights beyond the Bayesian implementation literature. We establish necessary and almost sufficient conditions for a social choice set to be fully implementable. Under the Wald-type maxmin preferences, we provide easy-to-check sufficient conditions for implementation. As applications, we implement the set of ambiguous Pareto-efficient and individually rational social choice functions, the maxmin core, the maxmin weak core, and the maxmin value. (JEL D71, D81, D82)

Ambiguity and Probabilistic Information

Experiments detecting ambiguity aversion often rely on the assumption that probabilities are exogenously given for some uncertain events. However, the canonical models that accommodate ambiguity into economic theory, such as the maxmin expected utility (MEU) and Choquet expected utility (CEU) models, are purely subjective. These models do not specify how subjects could incorporate exogenous probabilities into decisions. We study two approaches for embedding exogenous probabilities in the context of the thought experiments suggested by Mark Machina. We show that Machina’s choice behavior entails fundamentally different consequences for the ambiguity models mentioned; although it violates the CEU model, it is consistent with the MEU model. For the latter model, Machina’s experiments can test whether individuals adhere to expected utility for prospects whose consequences occur with the exogenously given probabilities. This paper was accepted by Manel Baucells, decision analysis.

Robust Decision Theory and Econometrics

This review uses the empirical analysis of portfolio choice to illustrate econometric issues that arise in decision problems. Subjective expected utility (SEU) can provide normative guidance to an investor making a portfolio choice. The investor, however, may have doubts on the specification of the distribution and may seek a decision theory that is less sensitive to the specification. I consider three such theories: maxmin expected utility, variational preferences (including multiplier and divergence preferences and the associated constraint preferences), and smooth ambiguity preferences. I use a simple two-period model to illustrate their application. Normative empirical work on portfolio choice is mainly in the SEU framework, and bringing in ideas from robust decision theory may be fruitful.

Discriminating Between Models of Ambiguity Attitude: a Qualitative Test

During recent decades, many new models have emerged in pure and applied economic theory according to which agents’ choices may be sensitive to ambiguity in the uncertainty that faces them. The exchange between Epstein (2010) and Klibanoff et al. (2012) identified a notable behavioral issue that distinguishes sharply between two classes of models of ambiguity sensitivity that are importantly different. The two classes are exemplified by the α-maxmin expected utility (MEU) model and the smooth ambiguity model, respectively; and the issue is whether or not a desire to hedge independently resolving ambiguities contributes to an ambiguity-averse agent's preference for a randomized act. Building on this insight, we implement an experiment whose design provides a qualitative test that discriminates between the two classes of models. Among subjects identified as ambiguity sensitive, we find greater support for the class exemplified by the smooth ambiguity model; the relative support is stronger among subjects identified as ambiguity averse. This finding has implications for applications that rely on specific models of ambiguity preference.