The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ellsberg Revisited: An Experimental Study
Abstract
An extension to Ellsberg's experiment demonstrates that attitudes to ambiguity and compound objective lotteries are tightly associated. The sample is decomposed into three main groups: subjective expected utility subjects, who reduce compound objective lotteries and are ambiguity neutral, and two groups that exhibit different forms of association between preferences over compound lotteries and ambiguity, corresponding to alternative theoretical models that account for ambiguity averse or seeking behavior. Copyright The Econometric Society 2007.
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
Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects
Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/000282802762024700 · Cited by 5,939
Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior
Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (1989) · Journal of Mathematical Economics · doi:10.1016/0304-4068(89)90018-9 · Cited by 4,040
Increasing risk: I. A definition
Rothschild, M., & Stiglitz, J. E. (1970) · Journal of Economic Theory · doi:10.1016/0022-0531(70)90038-4 · Cited by 3,829
A theory of anticipated utility
Quiggin, J. (1982) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/0167-2681(82)90008-7 · Cited by 3,129
Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method
Becker, G. M., Degroot, M. H., & Marschak, J. (1964) · Behavioral Science · doi:10.1002/bs.3830090304 · Cited by 2,640
Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity
(2004) · Uncertainty in Economic Theory · doi:10.4324/9780203358061-10 · Cited by 2,510
Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity
Schmeidler, D. (1989) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1911053 · Cited by 2,303
(2013) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.103.3.i · Cited by 1,916
A Smooth Model of Decision Making under Ambiguity
Klibanoff, P., Marinacci, M., & Mukerji, S. (2005) · Econometrica · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00640.x · Cited by 1,882
Cited by
The empirical relationship between nonstandard economic behaviors
Dean, M., & Ortoleva, P. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1821353116 · Cited by 78
Linnerud, K., Toney, P., Simonsen, M., & Holden, E. (2019) · Energy Policy · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2019.04.039 · Cited by 27
Metadata
- Authors
- Halevy, Y.
- Venue
- Econometrica
- Publisher
- The Econometric Society
- Published
- 2007-03
- Volume
- 75
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 503-536
- ISSN
- 0012-9682 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-0262
- OpenAlex
- W3123603330
- Cited by
- 609
- References
- 44
- FWCI
- 13.17
- 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: Ellsberg Revisited: An Experimental Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00755.x
- The paper
- Halevy, Y. (2007). Ellsberg Revisited: An Experimental Study. Econometrica. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00755.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.
