Skip to content Skip to navigation
University of Warwick
  • Study
  • |
  • Research
  • |
  • Business
  • |
  • Alumni
  • |
  • News
  • |
  • About

University of Warwick
Publications service & WRAP

Highlight your research

  • WRAP
    • Home
    • Search WRAP
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse WRAP by Year
    • Browse WRAP by Subject
    • Browse WRAP by Department
    • Browse WRAP by Funder
    • Browse Theses by Department
  • Publications Service
    • Home
    • Search Publications Service
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse Publications service by Year
    • Browse Publications service by Subject
    • Browse Publications service by Department
    • Browse Publications service by Funder
  • Help & Advice
University of Warwick

The Library

  • Login
  • Admin

Aggregating imprecise or conflicting beliefs : an experimental investigation using modern ambiguity theories

Tools
- Tools
+ Tools

Baillon, Aurélien, Cabantous, Laure and Wakker, Peter P. (2012) Aggregating imprecise or conflicting beliefs : an experimental investigation using modern ambiguity theories. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol.44 (No.2). pp. 115-147. doi:10.1007/s11166-012-9140-x

Research output not available from this repository, contact author.
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11166-012-9140-x

Request Changes to record.

Abstract

Two experiments show that violations of expected utility due to ambiguity, found in general decision experiments, also affect belief aggregation. Hence we use modern ambiguity theories to analyze belief aggregation, thus obtaining more refined and empirically more valid results than traditional theories can provide. We can now confirm more reliably that conflicting (heterogeneous) beliefs where some agents express certainty are processed differently than informationally equivalent imprecise homogeneous beliefs. We can also investigate new phenomena related to ambiguity. For instance, agents who express certainty receive extra weight (a cognitive effect related to ambiguity-generated insensitivity) and generate extra preference value (source preference; a motivational effect related to ambiguity aversion). Hence, incentive compatible belief elicitations that prevent manipulation are especially warranted when agents express certainty. For multiple prior theories of ambiguity, our findings imply that the same prior probabilities can be treated differently in different contexts, suggesting an interest of corresponding generalizations.

Item Type: Journal Article
Divisions: Faculty of Social Sciences > Warwick Business School
Journal or Publication Title: Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
Publisher: Springer New York LLC
ISSN: 0895-5646
Official Date: 2012
Dates:
DateEvent
2012Published
Volume: Vol.44
Number: No.2
Page Range: pp. 115-147
DOI: 10.1007/s11166-012-9140-x
Status: Peer Reviewed
Publication Status: Published
Access rights to Published version: Restricted or Subscription Access

Request changes or add full text files to a record

Repository staff actions (login required)

View Item View Item
twitter

Email us: wrap@warwick.ac.uk
Contact Details
About Us