The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Smooth Model of Decision Making under Ambiguity
Abstract
We propose and characterize a model of preferences over acts such that the decision maker prefers act f to act g if and only if E μ φ( E π u○f) ⩾ E μ φ( E π u○g), where E is the expectation operator, u is a von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function, φis an increasing transformation, and μis a subjective probability over the set Πof probability measures πthat the decision maker thinks are relevant given his subjective information. A key feature of our model is that it achieves a separation between ambiguity, identified as a characteristic of the decision maker's subjective beliefs, and ambiguity attitude, a characteristic of the decision maker's tastes. We show that attitudes toward pure risk are characterized by the shape of u, as usual, while attitudes toward ambiguity are characterized by the shape of φ. Ambiguity itself is defined behaviorally and is shown to be characterized by properties of the subjective set of measures Π. One advantage of this model is that the well-developed machinery for dealing with risk attitudes can be applied as well to ambiguity attitudes. The model is also distinct from many in the literature on ambiguity in that it allows smooth, rather than kinked, indifference curves. This leads to different behavior and improved tractability, while still sharing the main features (e.g., Ellsberg's paradox). The maxmin expected utility model (e.g., Gilboa and Schmeidler (1989)) with a given set of measures may be seen as a limiting case of our model with infinite ambiguity aversion. Two illustrative portfolio choice examples are offered. Copyright The Econometric Society 2005.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
“Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms.”
Ellsberg, D. (1961) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1884324 · Cited by 7,891
Cited by
Ellsberg Revisited: An Experimental Study
Halevy, Y. (2007) · Econometrica · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00755.x · Cited by 609
Pricing Uncertainty Induced by Climate Change
Barnett, M., Brock, W., & Hansen, L. P. (2020) · The Review of Financial Studies · doi:10.1093/rfs/hhz144 · Cited by 467
The Nature of Risk Preferences: Evidence from Insurance Choices
Barseghyan, L., Molinari, F., O'Donoghue, T., & Teitelbaum, J. C. (2013) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.103.6.2499 · Cited by 348
Risk management and climate change
Kunreuther, H., Heal, G., Allen, M., Edenhofer, O., Field, C. B., & Yohe, G. (2013) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate1740 · Cited by 268
Portfolio Selection with Parameter and Model Uncertainty: A Multi-Prior Approach
Garlappi, L., Wang, T., & Uppal, R. (2004) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.671981 · Cited by 264
Metadata
- Authors
- Klibanoff, P., Marinacci, M., & Mukerji, S.
- Venue
- Econometrica
- Publisher
- The Econometric Society
- Published
- 2005-11
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1849-1892
- ISSN
- 0012-9682 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-0262
- OpenAlex
- W3122592429
- Cited by
- 1,882
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 18.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Smooth Model of Decision Making under Ambiguity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00640.x
- The paper
- Klibanoff, P., Marinacci, M., & Mukerji, S. (2005). A Smooth Model of Decision Making under Ambiguity. Econometrica. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00640.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.