On the Smooth Ambiguity Model: A Reply.
We …find that Epstein (2010)'s Ellsberg-style thought experiments pose, contrary to his claims, no paradox or difficulty for the smooth ambiguity model of decision making under uncertainty developed by Klibanoff, Marinacci and Mukerji (2005). Not only are the thought experiments naturally handl...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Working paper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Department of Economics (University of Oxford)
2011
|
| _version_ | 1797081129668313088 |
|---|---|
| author | Mukerji, S Klibanoff, P Marinacci, M |
| author_facet | Mukerji, S Klibanoff, P Marinacci, M |
| author_sort | Mukerji, S |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | We …find that Epstein (2010)'s Ellsberg-style thought experiments pose, contrary to his claims, no paradox or difficulty for the smooth ambiguity model of decision making under uncertainty developed by Klibanoff, Marinacci and Mukerji (2005). Not only are the thought experiments naturally handled by the smooth ambiguity model, but our reanalysis shows that they highlight some of its strengths compared to models such as the maxmin expected utility model (Gilboa and Schmeidler, 1989). In particular, these examples pose no challenge to the model's foundations, interpretation of the model as a¤ording a separation of ambiguity and ambiguity attitude or the potential for calibrating ambiguity attitude in the model. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T01:10:09Z |
| format | Working paper |
| id | oxford-uuid:8cb657da-23b8-4a67-894e-bcb264e97e9a |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T01:10:09Z |
| publishDate | 2011 |
| publisher | Department of Economics (University of Oxford) |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:8cb657da-23b8-4a67-894e-bcb264e97e9a2022-03-26T22:46:23ZOn the Smooth Ambiguity Model: A Reply.Working paperhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_8042uuid:8cb657da-23b8-4a67-894e-bcb264e97e9aEnglishDepartment of Economics - ePrintsDepartment of Economics (University of Oxford)2011Mukerji, SKlibanoff, PMarinacci, MWe …find that Epstein (2010)'s Ellsberg-style thought experiments pose, contrary to his claims, no paradox or difficulty for the smooth ambiguity model of decision making under uncertainty developed by Klibanoff, Marinacci and Mukerji (2005). Not only are the thought experiments naturally handled by the smooth ambiguity model, but our reanalysis shows that they highlight some of its strengths compared to models such as the maxmin expected utility model (Gilboa and Schmeidler, 1989). In particular, these examples pose no challenge to the model's foundations, interpretation of the model as a¤ording a separation of ambiguity and ambiguity attitude or the potential for calibrating ambiguity attitude in the model. |
| spellingShingle | Mukerji, S Klibanoff, P Marinacci, M On the Smooth Ambiguity Model: A Reply. |
| title | On the Smooth Ambiguity Model: A Reply. |
| title_full | On the Smooth Ambiguity Model: A Reply. |
| title_fullStr | On the Smooth Ambiguity Model: A Reply. |
| title_full_unstemmed | On the Smooth Ambiguity Model: A Reply. |
| title_short | On the Smooth Ambiguity Model: A Reply. |
| title_sort | on the smooth ambiguity model a reply |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mukerjis onthesmoothambiguitymodelareply AT klibanoffp onthesmoothambiguitymodelareply AT marinaccim onthesmoothambiguitymodelareply |