English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

We define coherent-ambiguity aversion within the Klibanoff, Marinacci and Mukerji (2005) smooth ambiguity model (henceforth KMM) as the combination of choice-ambiguity aversion and value-ambiguity aversion. We analyze theoretically five ambiguous decision tasks, where a subject faces two-stage lotteries with binomial, uniform or unknown second-order probabilities. We check our theoretical predictions through a 10-task laboratory experiment. In (unambiguous) tasks 1-5, we elicit risk aversion both through a portfolio choice method andthrough a BDM mechanism. In (ambiguous) tasks 6-10, we elicit choice-ambiguity aversion through the portfolio choice method and value-ambiguity aversion through the BDM mechanism. We find that more than 75% of classified subjects behave according to the KMM model in all tasks 6-10, independent of their degree of risk aversion. Further, the percentage of coherently-ambiguity-averse subjects is lower in the binomial than in the uniform and in the unknown treatment, with only the latter difference being significant. Finally, highly-risk-averse subjects are more prone to coherent-ambiguity

Eliciting Ambiguity Aversion in Unknown and in Compound Lotteries: A KMM Experimental Approach