Abstract In this paper we examine the performance of theories of decision making under uncertainty/ambiguity from the perspective of their descriptive and predictive power. To this end, we employ an innovative experimental design which enables us to reproduce ambiguity in the laboratory in a transparent and non-probabilistic way. We find that judging theories on the basis of their theoretical appeal, or on their ability to do well in terms of estimation, is not the same as judging them on the basis of their predictive power. We find that the models that perform better in an aggregate sense are Gilboa and Schmeidler’s MaxMin and MaxMax Expected Utility Models,and Ghiradarto et al.’s Alpha Model, implying that more elegant theoretical models do not perform as well as relatively simple models. This suggests that decisionmakers, when confronted with a difficult problem, try to simplify it, rather thanapply a sophisticated decision rule.

The descriptive and predictive adequacy of theoriesof decision making under uncertainty/ambiguity

LOTITO, Gianna;MAFFIOLETTI, Anna
2010-01-01

Abstract

Abstract In this paper we examine the performance of theories of decision making under uncertainty/ambiguity from the perspective of their descriptive and predictive power. To this end, we employ an innovative experimental design which enables us to reproduce ambiguity in the laboratory in a transparent and non-probabilistic way. We find that judging theories on the basis of their theoretical appeal, or on their ability to do well in terms of estimation, is not the same as judging them on the basis of their predictive power. We find that the models that perform better in an aggregate sense are Gilboa and Schmeidler’s MaxMin and MaxMax Expected Utility Models,and Ghiradarto et al.’s Alpha Model, implying that more elegant theoretical models do not perform as well as relatively simple models. This suggests that decisionmakers, when confronted with a difficult problem, try to simplify it, rather thanapply a sophisticated decision rule.
2010
41
81
111
http://scienceserver.cilea.it/cgi-bin/sciserv.pl?collection=journals&journal=08955646&issue=v41i0002
Ambiguity; Bingo blower; Choquet expected utility; Decision field theory . Decision making . (Subjective) expected utility . (Gilboa and Schmeidler)MaxMin EU . (Gilboa and Schmeidler) MaxMax EU . (Ghirardato) alpha model .MaxMin . MaxMax . Minimum regret . Prospect theory . Uncertainty; Ellsberg paradox.
D. Hey; G. Lotito; A. Maffioletti
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
ambiguity final.pdf

Accesso riservato

Tipo di file: POSTPRINT (VERSIONE FINALE DELL’AUTORE)
Dimensione 578.19 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
578.19 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/138056
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 81
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact