An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade...

59
An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell

Transcript of An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade...

Page 1: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade

Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell

Page 2: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Overview

• Can interactions in market institutions eliminate the effect of ambiguity-aversion on individual decisions?

• Ambiguity is thought to be particularly important for understanding market behaviour e.g. Epstein and Wang (1994).

• We measured risk and ambiguity preferences and studied decisions under risk and ambiguity with and without trade.

• Market incentives and feedback did not eliminate the effect of ambiguity on individual decisions

Page 3: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Outline of this presentation

• Research questions and hypotheses

• Related research

• Methods

• Results

• Measured preferences

• Preferences and market transactions

• Treatment effects

• Summary

Page 4: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Research questions and hypotheses

• What is the relationship between decision-making under risk and ambiguity and market activity?

• A comparison of risk and ambiguity preferences with trade.

• The effect of risk and ambiguity on individual decisions.

• The effect of trade on individual decisions.

• Do market incentives and feedback reduce the effect of ambiguity on individual decisions?

Page 5: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Related research

• Previous experimental studies have examined whether the effect of ambiguity persists in markets and have examined the effects on prices and bids.

• Detecting the effect of ambiguity may depend on the type of market institution.

• The effect of ambiguity may be greater when a risky option is available for comparison.

Page 6: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Experiment design

Without trade With trade

Risk 37 Subjects

5 decision periods

4 market sessions

(10 subjects in each)

5 market periods and

decision periods

Ambiguity 40 Subjects

5 decision periods

4 market sessions

(10 subjects in each)

5 market periods and

decision periods

Page 7: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Methods

Part one

• Measurements of subjects’ preferences under conditions of risk and ambiguity

Part two

• Investment decisions and markets

Page 8: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Measuring risk preferences and ambiguity preferences

• Iterative certainty equivalent procedure

• Paired lottery choices

• Certainty equivalent

• Willingness-to-accept for a lottery draw

• Varied probability choices

Page 9: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Iteration Lottery Expected

xi xl xh utility

1 0 20 0.500

2 0 x1 0.250

3 x1 20 0.750

4 0 x2 0.125

5 x2 x1 0.375

6 x1 x3 0.625

7 x3 20 0.875

Iterative certainty equivalence

Page 10: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Paired lottery choicesOption A EV(A) Option B EV(B) EV(B) - EV(A)

0/10 of $3.85, 10/10 of $0.10 0.1 0/10 of $2.00, 10/10 of $1.60 1.6 1.500

1/10 of $3.85, 9/10 of $0.10 0.475 1/10 of $2.00, 9/10 of $1.60 1.64 1.165

2/10 of $3.85, 8/10 of $0.10 0.85 2/10 of $2.00, 8/10 of $1.60 1.68 0.830

3/10 of $3.85, 7/10 of $0.10 1.225 3/10 of $2.00, 7/10 of $1.60 1.72 0.495

4/10 of $3.85, 6/10 of $0.10 1.6 4/10 of $2.00, 6/10 of $1.60 1.76 0.160

5/10 of $3.85, 5/10 of $0.10 1.975 5/10 of $2.00, 5/10 of $1.60 1.8 -0.175

6/10 of $3.85, 4/10 of $0.10 2.35 6/10 of $2.00, 4/10 of $1.60 1.84 -0.510

7/10 of $3.85, 3/10 of $0.10 2.725 7/10 of $2.00, 3/10 of $1.60 1.88 -0.845

8/10 of $3.85, 2/10 of $0.10 3.1 8/10 of $2.00, 2/10 of $1.60 1.92 -1.180

9/10 of $3.85, 1/10 of $0.10 3.475 9/10 of $2.00, 1/10 of $1.60 1.96 -1.515

10/10 of $3.85, 0/10 of $0.10 3.85 10/10 of $2.00, 0/10 of $1.60 2 -1.850

Page 11: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Risk-preferringOption A EV(A) Option B EV(B) EV(B) - EV(A)

0/10 of $3.85, 10/10 of $0.10 0.1 0/10 of $2.00, 10/10 of $1.60 1.6 1.500

1/10 of $3.85, 9/10 of $0.10 0.475 1/10 of $2.00, 9/10 of $1.60 1.64 1.165

2/10 of $3.85, 8/10 of $0.10 0.85 2/10 of $2.00, 8/10 of $1.60 1.68 0.830

3/10 of $3.85, 7/10 of $0.10 1.225 3/10 of $2.00, 7/10 of $1.60 1.72 0.495

4/10 of $3.85, 6/10 of $0.10 1.6 4/10 of $2.00, 6/10 of $1.60 1.76 0.160

5/10 of $3.85, 5/10 of $0.10 1.975 5/10 of $2.00, 5/10 of $1.60 1.8 -0.175

6/10 of $3.85, 4/10 of $0.10 2.35 6/10 of $2.00, 4/10 of $1.60 1.84 -0.510

7/10 of $3.85, 3/10 of $0.10 2.725 7/10 of $2.00, 3/10 of $1.60 1.88 -0.845

8/10 of $3.85, 2/10 of $0.10 3.1 8/10 of $2.00, 2/10 of $1.60 1.92 -1.180

9/10 of $3.85, 1/10 of $0.10 3.475 9/10 of $2.00, 1/10 of $1.60 1.96 -1.515

10/10 of $3.85, 0/10 of $0.10 3.85 10/10 of $2.00, 0/10 of $1.60 2 -1.850

Page 12: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Risk-preferringOption A EV(A) Option B EV(B) EV(B) - EV(A)

0/10 of $3.85, 10/10 of $0.10 0.1 0/10 of $2.00, 10/10 of $1.60 1.6 1.500

1/10 of $3.85, 9/10 of $0.10 0.475 1/10 of $2.00, 9/10 of $1.60 1.64 1.165

2/10 of $3.85, 8/10 of $0.10 0.85 2/10 of $2.00, 8/10 of $1.60 1.68 0.830

3/10 of $3.85, 7/10 of $0.10 1.225 3/10 of $2.00, 7/10 of $1.60 1.72 0.495

4/10 of $3.85, 6/10 of $0.10 1.6 4/10 of $2.00, 6/10 of $1.60 1.76 0.160

5/10 of $3.85, 5/10 of $0.10 1.975 5/10 of $2.00, 5/10 of $1.60 1.8 -0.175

6/10 of $3.85, 4/10 of $0.10 2.35 6/10 of $2.00, 4/10 of $1.60 1.84 -0.510

7/10 of $3.85, 3/10 of $0.10 2.725 7/10 of $2.00, 3/10 of $1.60 1.88 -0.845

8/10 of $3.85, 2/10 of $0.10 3.1 8/10 of $2.00, 2/10 of $1.60 1.92 -1.180

9/10 of $3.85, 1/10 of $0.10 3.475 9/10 of $2.00, 1/10 of $1.60 1.96 -1.515

10/10 of $3.85, 0/10 of $0.10 3.85 10/10 of $2.00, 0/10 of $1.60 2 -1.850

Page 13: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Risk-preferringOption A EV(A) Option B EV(B) EV(B) - EV(A)

0/10 of $3.85, 10/10 of $0.10 0.1 0/10 of $2.00, 10/10 of $1.60 1.6 1.500

1/10 of $3.85, 9/10 of $0.10 0.475 1/10 of $2.00, 9/10 of $1.60 1.64 1.165

2/10 of $3.85, 8/10 of $0.10 0.85 2/10 of $2.00, 8/10 of $1.60 1.68 0.830

3/10 of $3.85, 7/10 of $0.10 1.225 3/10 of $2.00, 7/10 of $1.60 1.72 0.495

4/10 of $3.85, 6/10 of $0.10 1.6 4/10 of $2.00, 6/10 of $1.60 1.76 0.160

5/10 of $3.85, 5/10 of $0.10 1.975 5/10 of $2.00, 5/10 of $1.60 1.8 -0.175

6/10 of $3.85, 4/10 of $0.10 2.35 6/10 of $2.00, 4/10 of $1.60 1.84 -0.510

7/10 of $3.85, 3/10 of $0.10 2.725 7/10 of $2.00, 3/10 of $1.60 1.88 -0.845

8/10 of $3.85, 2/10 of $0.10 3.1 8/10 of $2.00, 2/10 of $1.60 1.92 -1.180

9/10 of $3.85, 1/10 of $0.10 3.475 9/10 of $2.00, 1/10 of $1.60 1.96 -1.515

10/10 of $3.85, 0/10 of $0.10 3.85 10/10 of $2.00, 0/10 of $1.60 2 -1.850

Page 14: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Risk-preferringOption A EV(A) Option B EV(B) EV(B) - EV(A)

0/10 of $3.85, 10/10 of $0.10 0.1 0/10 of $2.00, 10/10 of $1.60 1.6 1.500

1/10 of $3.85, 9/10 of $0.10 0.475 1/10 of $2.00, 9/10 of $1.60 1.64 1.165

2/10 of $3.85, 8/10 of $0.10 0.85 2/10 of $2.00, 8/10 of $1.60 1.68 0.830

3/10 of $3.85, 7/10 of $0.10 1.225 3/10 of $2.00, 7/10 of $1.60 1.72 0.495

4/10 of $3.85, 6/10 of $0.10 1.6 4/10 of $2.00, 6/10 of $1.60 1.76 0.160

5/10 of $3.85, 5/10 of $0.10 1.975 5/10 of $2.00, 5/10 of $1.60 1.8 -0.175

6/10 of $3.85, 4/10 of $0.10 2.35 6/10 of $2.00, 4/10 of $1.60 1.84 -0.510

7/10 of $3.85, 3/10 of $0.10 2.725 7/10 of $2.00, 3/10 of $1.60 1.88 -0.845

8/10 of $3.85, 2/10 of $0.10 3.1 8/10 of $2.00, 2/10 of $1.60 1.92 -1.180

9/10 of $3.85, 1/10 of $0.10 3.475 9/10 of $2.00, 1/10 of $1.60 1.96 -1.515

10/10 of $3.85, 0/10 of $0.10 3.85 10/10 of $2.00, 0/10 of $1.60 2 -1.850

Page 15: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Risk-neutralOption A EV(A) Option B EV(B) EV(B) - EV(A)

0/10 of $3.85, 10/10 of $0.10 0.1 0/10 of $2.00, 10/10 of $1.60 1.6 1.500

1/10 of $3.85, 9/10 of $0.10 0.475 1/10 of $2.00, 9/10 of $1.60 1.64 1.165

2/10 of $3.85, 8/10 of $0.10 0.85 2/10 of $2.00, 8/10 of $1.60 1.68 0.830

3/10 of $3.85, 7/10 of $0.10 1.225 3/10 of $2.00, 7/10 of $1.60 1.72 0.495

4/10 of $3.85, 6/10 of $0.10 1.6 4/10 of $2.00, 6/10 of $1.60 1.76 0.160

5/10 of $3.85, 5/10 of $0.10 1.975 5/10 of $2.00, 5/10 of $1.60 1.8 -0.175

6/10 of $3.85, 4/10 of $0.10 2.35 6/10 of $2.00, 4/10 of $1.60 1.84 -0.510

7/10 of $3.85, 3/10 of $0.10 2.725 7/10 of $2.00, 3/10 of $1.60 1.88 -0.845

8/10 of $3.85, 2/10 of $0.10 3.1 8/10 of $2.00, 2/10 of $1.60 1.92 -1.180

9/10 of $3.85, 1/10 of $0.10 3.475 9/10 of $2.00, 1/10 of $1.60 1.96 -1.515

10/10 of $3.85, 0/10 of $0.10 3.85 10/10 of $2.00, 0/10 of $1.60 2 -1.850

Page 16: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Risk-averseOption A EV(A) Option B EV(B) EV(B) - EV(A)

0/10 of $3.85, 10/10 of $0.10 0.1 0/10 of $2.00, 10/10 of $1.60 1.6 1.500

1/10 of $3.85, 9/10 of $0.10 0.475 1/10 of $2.00, 9/10 of $1.60 1.64 1.165

2/10 of $3.85, 8/10 of $0.10 0.85 2/10 of $2.00, 8/10 of $1.60 1.68 0.830

3/10 of $3.85, 7/10 of $0.10 1.225 3/10 of $2.00, 7/10 of $1.60 1.72 0.495

4/10 of $3.85, 6/10 of $0.10 1.6 4/10 of $2.00, 6/10 of $1.60 1.76 0.160

5/10 of $3.85, 5/10 of $0.10 1.975 5/10 of $2.00, 5/10 of $1.60 1.8 -0.175

6/10 of $3.85, 4/10 of $0.10 2.35 6/10 of $2.00, 4/10 of $1.60 1.84 -0.510

7/10 of $3.85, 3/10 of $0.10 2.725 7/10 of $2.00, 3/10 of $1.60 1.88 -0.845

8/10 of $3.85, 2/10 of $0.10 3.1 8/10 of $2.00, 2/10 of $1.60 1.92 -1.180

9/10 of $3.85, 1/10 of $0.10 3.475 9/10 of $2.00, 1/10 of $1.60 1.96 -1.515

10/10 of $3.85, 0/10 of $0.10 3.85 10/10 of $2.00, 0/10 of $1.60 2 -1.850

Page 17: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Risk-averseOption A EV(A) Option B EV(B) EV(B) - EV(A)

0/10 of $3.85, 10/10 of $0.10 0.1 0/10 of $2.00, 10/10 of $1.60 1.6 1.500

1/10 of $3.85, 9/10 of $0.10 0.475 1/10 of $2.00, 9/10 of $1.60 1.64 1.165

2/10 of $3.85, 8/10 of $0.10 0.85 2/10 of $2.00, 8/10 of $1.60 1.68 0.830

3/10 of $3.85, 7/10 of $0.10 1.225 3/10 of $2.00, 7/10 of $1.60 1.72 0.495

4/10 of $3.85, 6/10 of $0.10 1.6 4/10 of $2.00, 6/10 of $1.60 1.76 0.160

5/10 of $3.85, 5/10 of $0.10 1.975 5/10 of $2.00, 5/10 of $1.60 1.8 -0.175

6/10 of $3.85, 4/10 of $0.10 2.35 6/10 of $2.00, 4/10 of $1.60 1.84 -0.510

7/10 of $3.85, 3/10 of $0.10 2.725 7/10 of $2.00, 3/10 of $1.60 1.88 -0.845

8/10 of $3.85, 2/10 of $0.10 3.1 8/10 of $2.00, 2/10 of $1.60 1.92 -1.180

9/10 of $3.85, 1/10 of $0.10 3.475 9/10 of $2.00, 1/10 of $1.60 1.96 -1.515

10/10 of $3.85, 0/10 of $0.10 3.85 10/10 of $2.00, 0/10 of $1.60 2 -1.850

Page 18: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Risk-averseOption A EV(A) Option B EV(B) EV(B) - EV(A)

0/10 of $3.85, 10/10 of $0.10 0.1 0/10 of $2.00, 10/10 of $1.60 1.6 1.500

1/10 of $3.85, 9/10 of $0.10 0.475 1/10 of $2.00, 9/10 of $1.60 1.64 1.165

2/10 of $3.85, 8/10 of $0.10 0.85 2/10 of $2.00, 8/10 of $1.60 1.68 0.830

3/10 of $3.85, 7/10 of $0.10 1.225 3/10 of $2.00, 7/10 of $1.60 1.72 0.495

4/10 of $3.85, 6/10 of $0.10 1.6 4/10 of $2.00, 6/10 of $1.60 1.76 0.160

5/10 of $3.85, 5/10 of $0.10 1.975 5/10 of $2.00, 5/10 of $1.60 1.8 -0.175

6/10 of $3.85, 4/10 of $0.10 2.35 6/10 of $2.00, 4/10 of $1.60 1.84 -0.510

7/10 of $3.85, 3/10 of $0.10 2.725 7/10 of $2.00, 3/10 of $1.60 1.88 -0.845

8/10 of $3.85, 2/10 of $0.10 3.1 8/10 of $2.00, 2/10 of $1.60 1.92 -1.180

9/10 of $3.85, 1/10 of $0.10 3.475 9/10 of $2.00, 1/10 of $1.60 1.96 -1.515

10/10 of $3.85, 0/10 of $0.10 3.85 10/10 of $2.00, 0/10 of $1.60 2 -1.850

Page 19: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Risk-averseOption A EV(A) Option B EV(B) EV(B) - EV(A)

0/10 of $3.85, 10/10 of $0.10 0.1 0/10 of $2.00, 10/10 of $1.60 1.6 1.500

1/10 of $3.85, 9/10 of $0.10 0.475 1/10 of $2.00, 9/10 of $1.60 1.64 1.165

2/10 of $3.85, 8/10 of $0.10 0.85 2/10 of $2.00, 8/10 of $1.60 1.68 0.830

3/10 of $3.85, 7/10 of $0.10 1.225 3/10 of $2.00, 7/10 of $1.60 1.72 0.495

4/10 of $3.85, 6/10 of $0.10 1.6 4/10 of $2.00, 6/10 of $1.60 1.76 0.160

5/10 of $3.85, 5/10 of $0.10 1.975 5/10 of $2.00, 5/10 of $1.60 1.8 -0.175

6/10 of $3.85, 4/10 of $0.10 2.35 6/10 of $2.00, 4/10 of $1.60 1.84 -0.510

7/10 of $3.85, 3/10 of $0.10 2.725 7/10 of $2.00, 3/10 of $1.60 1.88 -0.845

8/10 of $3.85, 2/10 of $0.10 3.1 8/10 of $2.00, 2/10 of $1.60 1.92 -1.180

9/10 of $3.85, 1/10 of $0.10 3.475 9/10 of $2.00, 1/10 of $1.60 1.96 -1.515

10/10 of $3.85, 0/10 of $0.10 3.85 10/10 of $2.00, 0/10 of $1.60 2 -1.850

Page 20: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Risk-averseOption A EV(A) Option B EV(B) EV(B) - EV(A)

0/10 of $3.85, 10/10 of $0.10 0.1 0/10 of $2.00, 10/10 of $1.60 1.6 1.500

1/10 of $3.85, 9/10 of $0.10 0.475 1/10 of $2.00, 9/10 of $1.60 1.64 1.165

2/10 of $3.85, 8/10 of $0.10 0.85 2/10 of $2.00, 8/10 of $1.60 1.68 0.830

3/10 of $3.85, 7/10 of $0.10 1.225 3/10 of $2.00, 7/10 of $1.60 1.72 0.495

4/10 of $3.85, 6/10 of $0.10 1.6 4/10 of $2.00, 6/10 of $1.60 1.76 0.160

5/10 of $3.85, 5/10 of $0.10 1.975 5/10 of $2.00, 5/10 of $1.60 1.8 -0.175

6/10 of $3.85, 4/10 of $0.10 2.35 6/10 of $2.00, 4/10 of $1.60 1.84 -0.510

7/10 of $3.85, 3/10 of $0.10 2.725 7/10 of $2.00, 3/10 of $1.60 1.88 -0.845

8/10 of $3.85, 2/10 of $0.10 3.1 8/10 of $2.00, 2/10 of $1.60 1.92 -1.180

9/10 of $3.85, 1/10 of $0.10 3.475 9/10 of $2.00, 1/10 of $1.60 1.96 -1.515

10/10 of $3.85, 0/10 of $0.10 3.85 10/10 of $2.00, 0/10 of $1.60 2 -1.850

Page 21: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Willingness-To-Accept

Container A

$ ?

Container B

$ ?

?

Page 22: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Varying the probability

Container A Container B

?

Page 23: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Ambiguity-averse

Container A Container B

?

Page 24: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Ambiguity-averse

Container A Container B

?

Page 25: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Ambiguity-averse

Container A Container B

?

Page 26: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Ambiguity-averse

Container A Container B

?

Page 27: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Ambiguity-averse

Container A Container B

?

Page 28: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Ambiguity-neutral

Container A Container B

?

Page 29: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Ambiguity-preferring

Container A Container B

?

Page 30: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Ambiguity-preferring

Container A Container B

?

Page 31: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Ambiguity-preferring

Container A Container B

?

Page 32: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Ambiguity-preferring

Container A Container B

?

Page 33: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Ambiguity-preferring

Container A Container B

?

Page 34: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Methods used to study individual decisions and market trade

• Subjects were allocated 100 investment units at the start of each period.

• They decided how many units to allocate to either:

• Option A with a return of either 8 cents per unit of 0 cents per unit

• Option B with a certain return of 2 cents per unit.

• In market sessions, subjects could trade units in a multiple-unit double auction before making their decisions.

Page 35: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Summary of measurement results

Procedure Median MeanStandard deviation

Paired lottery (gains) 6.00 5.39 1.62

Paired lottery (losses) 6.00 6.42 1.90

CE (gains, $20/$0) $10.00 $10.16 $3.81

CE (losses, $20/$0) $-9.40 $-9.35 $3.58

CE (gains, $8/$0) $3.92 $3.78 $1.49

ICE (gains, exponential) 0.0496 0.0496 0.3109

ICE (gains, power) 0.983 1.0155 0.1878

BDM (risk, $20/$0) $10.00 $10.01 $5.01

BDM (ambiguity, $20/$0) $8.00 $8.95 $5.68

BDM ratio 1.20 1.36 0.49

Prob. Equiv. (ambiguity) 42.00% 40.76% 14.46%

Page 36: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Summary of measurement results

Procedure Median MeanStandard deviation

Paired lottery (gains) 6.00 5.39 1.62

Paired lottery (losses) 6.00 6.42 1.90

CE (gains, $20/$0) $10.00 $10.16 $3.81

CE (losses, $20/$0) $-9.40 $-9.35 $3.58

CE (gains, $8/$0) $3.92 $3.78 $1.49

ICE (gains, exponential) 0.0496 0.0496 0.3109

ICE (gains, power) 0.983 1.0155 0.1878

BDM (risk, $20/$0) $10.00 $10.01 $5.01

BDM (ambiguity, $20/$0) $8.00 $8.95 $5.68

BDM ratio 1.20 1.36 0.49

Prob. Equiv. (ambiguity) 42.00% 40.76% 14.46%

Page 37: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Summary of measurement results

Procedure Median MeanStandard deviation

Paired lottery (gains) 6.00 5.39 1.62

Paired lottery (losses) 6.00 6.42 1.90

CE (gains, $20/$0) $10.00 $10.16 $3.81

CE (losses, $20/$0) $-9.40 $-9.35 $3.58

CE (gains, $8/$0) $3.92 $3.78 $1.49

ICE (gains, exponential) 0.0496 0.0496 0.3109

ICE (gains, power) 0.983 1.0155 0.1878

BDM (risk, $20/$0) $10.00 $10.01 $5.01

BDM (ambiguity, $20/$0) $8.00 $8.95 $5.68

BDM ratio 1.20 1.36 0.49

Prob. Equiv. (ambiguity) 42.00% 40.76% 14.46%

Page 38: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Summary of measurement results

Procedure Median MeanStandard deviation

Paired lottery (gains) 6.00 5.39 1.62

Paired lottery (losses) 6.00 6.42 1.90

CE (gains, $20/$0) $10.00 $10.16 $3.81

CE (losses, $20/$0) $-9.40 $-9.35 $3.58

CE (gains, $8/$0) $3.92 $3.78 $1.49

ICE (gains, exponential) 0.0496 0.0496 0.3109

ICE (gains, power) 0.983 1.0155 0.1878

BDM (risk, $20/$0) $10.00 $10.01 $5.01

BDM (ambiguity, $20/$0) $8.00 $8.95 $5.68

BDM ratio 1.20 1.36 0.49

Prob. Equiv. (ambiguity) 42.00% 40.76% 14.46%

Page 39: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Correlations between measurements

Pearson CorrelationsCE

(gains, $20/$0)

CE(losses, $20/$0)

CE(gains, $8/$0)

BDM(risk,

$20/$0)

ICE (gains, exponential)

CE(gains, $8/$0)

Correlation Coefficient .463(**) 1

Significance .000BDM

(ambiguity,$20/$0)

Correlation Coefficient .359(**) .320(*) .731(**)

Significance .004 .011 .000

Paired lotteries (gains)

Correlation Coefficient -.298(*) .268(*)

Significance .018 .034

Paired lotteries (losses)

Correlation Coefficient .305(*)

Significance .015Probability

Equivalence (ambiguity)

Correlation Coefficient .249(*)

Significance .049

BDM ratioCorrelation Coefficient .268(*)

Significance .033

ICE (gains, exponential)

Correlation Coefficient .665(**) .435(**) 1

Significance .000 .000

ICE (gains, power)

Correlation Coefficient .745(**) .444(**) .922(**)

Significance .000 .000 .000

Page 40: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Correlations between measurements

Pearson CorrelationsCE

(gains, $20/$0)

CE(losses, $20/$0)

CE(gains, $8/$0)

BDM(risk,

$20/$0)

ICE (gains, exponential)

CE(gains, $8/$0)

Correlation Coefficient .463(**) 1

Significance .000BDM

(ambiguity,$20/$0)

Correlation Coefficient .359(**) .320(*) .731(**)

Significance .004 .011 .000

Paired lotteries (gains)

Correlation Coefficient -.298(*) .268(*)

Significance .018 .034

Paired lotteries (losses)

Correlation Coefficient .305(*)

Significance .015Probability

Equivalence (ambiguity)

Correlation Coefficient .249(*)

Significance .049

BDM ratioCorrelation Coefficient .268(*)

Significance .033

ICE (gains, exponential)

Correlation Coefficient .665(**) .435(**) 1

Significance .000 .000

ICE (gains, power)

Correlation Coefficient .745(**) .444(**) .922(**)

Significance .000 .000 .000

Page 41: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Correlations between measurements

Pearson CorrelationsCE

(gains, $20/$0)

CE(losses, $20/$0)

CE(gains, $8/$0)

BDM(risk,

$20/$0)

ICE (gains, exponential)

CE(gains, $8/$0)

Correlation Coefficient .463(**) 1

Significance .000BDM

(ambiguity,$20/$0)

Correlation Coefficient .359(**) .320(*) .731(**)

Significance .004 .011 .000

Paired lotteries (gains)

Correlation Coefficient -.298(*) .268(*)

Significance .018 .034

Paired lotteries (losses)

Correlation Coefficient .305(*)

Significance .015Probability

Equivalence (ambiguity)

Correlation Coefficient .249(*)

Significance .049

BDM ratioCorrelation Coefficient .268(*)

Significance .033

ICE (gains, exponential)

Correlation Coefficient .665(**) .435(**) 1

Significance .000 .000

ICE (gains, power)

Correlation Coefficient .745(**) .444(**) .922(**)

Significance .000 .000 .000

Page 42: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Procedure Preferring Neutral Averse Other

Paired lotteries (gains) 8 20 28 7

Paired lotteries (losses) 23 15 19 6

CE (gains, $20/$0) 28 7 27 1

CE (losses, $20/$0) 37 3 21 2

CE (gains, $8/$0) 21 11 29 2

ICE (gains, exponential) 28 2 31 2

ICE (gains, power) 33 2 26 2

BDM (risk, $20/$0) 24 14 25 0

BDM (ambiguity, $20/$0)

33 12 18 0

BDM ratio 10 22 31 0

Prob. Equiv. (ambiguity) 8 10 44 1

Classification of subjects

Page 43: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Procedure Preferring Neutral Averse Other

Paired lotteries (gains) 8 20 28 7

Paired lotteries (losses) 23 15 19 6

CE (gains, $20/$0) 28 7 27 1

CE (losses, $20/$0) 37 3 21 2

CE (gains, $8/$0) 21 11 29 2

ICE (gains, exponential) 28 2 31 2

ICE (gains, power) 33 2 26 2

BDM (risk, $20/$0) 24 14 25 0

BDM (ambiguity, $20/$0)

33 12 18 0

BDM ratio 10 22 31 0

Prob. Equiv. (ambiguity) 8 10 44 1

Classification of subjects

Page 44: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Procedure Preferring Neutral Averse Other

Paired lotteries (gains) 8 20 28 7

Paired lotteries (losses) 23 15 19 6

CE (gains, $20/$0) 28 7 27 1

CE (losses, $20/$0) 37 3 21 2

CE (gains, $8/$0) 21 11 29 2

ICE (gains, exponential) 28 2 31 2

ICE (gains, power) 33 2 26 2

BDM (risk, $20/$0) 24 14 25 0

BDM (ambiguity, $20/$0)

33 12 18 0

BDM ratio 10 22 31 0

Prob. Equiv. (ambiguity) 8 10 44 1

Classification of subjects

Page 45: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Procedure Preferring Neutral Averse Other

Paired lotteries (gains) 8 20 28 7

Paired lotteries (losses) 23 15 19 6

CE (gains, $20/$0) 28 7 27 1

CE (losses, $20/$0) 37 3 21 2

CE (gains, $8/$0) 21 11 29 2

ICE (gains, exponential) 28 2 31 2

ICE (gains, power) 33 2 26 2

BDM (risk, $20/$0) 24 14 25 0

BDM (ambiguity, $20/$0)

33 12 18 0

BDM ratio 10 22 31 0

Prob. Equiv. (ambiguity) 8 10 44 1

Classification of subjects

Page 46: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Procedure Preferring Neutral Averse Other

Paired lotteries (gains) 8 20 28 7

Paired lotteries (losses) 23 15 19 6

CE (gains, $20/$0) 28 7 27 1

CE (losses, $20/$0) 37 3 21 2

CE (gains, $8/$0) 21 11 29 2

ICE (gains, exponential) 28 2 31 2

ICE (gains, power) 33 2 26 2

BDM (risk, $20/$0) 24 14 25 0

BDM (ambiguity, $20/$0)

33 12 18 0

BDM ratio 10 22 31 0

Prob. Equiv. (ambiguity) 8 10 44 1

Classification of subjects

Page 47: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Measured preferences and trade direction

ProcedureRight

directionWrong

directionSame

measureMissing measure

Chi square

Sig. (p value)

CE (gains, $20/$0) 0.41 0.19 0.22 0.17 25.258(**) 0.000

CE (losses, $20/$0) 0.54 0.29 0.02 0.15 25.801(**) 0.000

CE (gains, $8/$0) 0.34 0.29 0.01 0.36 1.108 0.292

ICE (gains, exponential) 0.54 0.43 0.02 0 3.889(*) 0.049

ICE (gains, power) 0.56 0.44 0 0 4.738(*) 0.029

BDM (risk, $20/$0) 0.62 0.33 0.05 0 29.590(**) 0.000

BDM (ambiguity,$20/$0) 0.62 0.35 0.02 0 24.662(**) 0.000

BDM ratio 0.54 0.38 0.09 0 9.197(*) 0.002

Paired lotteries (gains) 0.27 0.29 0.16 0.29 0.14 0.709

Paired lotteries (losses) 0.3 0.16 0.12 0.42 13.620(**) 0.000

Prob. Equiv. (ambiguity) 0.43 0.47 0.1 0 0.585 0.444

Page 48: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Measured preferences and trade direction

ProcedureRight

directionWrong

directionSame

measureMissing measure

Chi square

Sig. (p value)

CE (gains, $20/$0) 0.41 0.19 0.22 0.17 25.258(**) 0.000

CE (losses, $20/$0) 0.54 0.29 0.02 0.15 25.801(**) 0.000

CE (gains, $8/$0) 0.34 0.29 0.01 0.36 1.108 0.292

ICE (gains, exponential) 0.54 0.43 0.02 0 3.889(*) 0.049

ICE (gains, power) 0.56 0.44 0 0 4.738(*) 0.029

BDM (risk, $20/$0) 0.62 0.33 0.05 0 29.590(**) 0.000

BDM (ambiguity,$20/$0) 0.62 0.35 0.02 0 24.662(**) 0.000

BDM ratio 0.54 0.38 0.09 0 9.197(*) 0.002

Paired lotteries (gains) 0.27 0.29 0.16 0.29 0.14 0.709

Paired lotteries (losses) 0.3 0.16 0.12 0.42 13.620(**) 0.000

Prob. Equiv. (ambiguity) 0.43 0.47 0.1 0 0.585 0.444

Page 49: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Percentage of investment units allocated to the uncertain option

Treatment Mean Standard deviation

Risk + Market 85.7 18.8

Risk 78.0 25.9

Ambiguity + Market 76.8 28.4

Ambiguity 67.8 26.7

Grand mean 73.5 29.8

Page 50: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Percentage of investment units allocated to the uncertain option

Treatment Mean Standard deviation

Risk + Market 85.7 18.8

Risk 78.0 25.9

Ambiguity + Market 76.8 28.4

Ambiguity 67.8 26.7

Grand mean 73.5 29.8

Page 51: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Percentage of investment units allocated to the uncertain option

Treatment Mean Standard deviation

Risk + Market 85.7 18.8

Risk 78.0 25.9

Ambiguity + Market 76.8 28.4

Ambiguity 67.8 26.7

Grand mean 73.5 29.8

Page 52: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Percentage of investment units allocated to the uncertain option

Treatment Mean Standard deviation

Risk + Market 85.7 18.8

Risk 78.0 25.9

Ambiguity + Market 76.8 28.4

Ambiguity 67.8 26.7

Grand mean 73.5 29.8

Page 53: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Percentage of investment units allocated to the uncertain option

Treatment Mean Standard deviation

Risk + Market 85.7 18.8

Risk 78.0 25.9

Ambiguity + Market 76.8 28.4

Ambiguity 67.8 26.7

Grand mean 73.5 29.8

Page 54: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Analysis of treatment effects

Effect of risk and ambiguity

• The mean proportion of investment units allocated to the uncertain option was significantly higher under risk than ambiguity (p = 0.009).

Effect of trade

• The mean proportion of investment units allocated to the uncertain option was significantly higher with trade than without trade (p = 0.046).

Page 55: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Analysis of treatment effects

Do market incentives and feedback reduce the effect of ambiguity on individual decisions?

• The hypothesized interaction between the market treatment and the information treatment was not significant (p = 0.918), although the difference in mean contributions was in the direction predicted.

Page 56: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Summary

• Although mean responses to the measurement procedures were close to risk-neutral, subjects exhibited a range of risk and ambiguity preferences.

• The direction of trade observed was consistent with many of the measurement procedures.

• An effect of information (risk vs ambiguity) and an effect of trade was observed.

• Market incentives and feedback did not eliminate the effect of ambiguity.

Page 57: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Acknowledgements

• I would like to acknowledge the support of my supervisor and co-author, John Tisdell.

• I would also like to acknowledge the support of the Australian Rivers Institute, the Griffith School of the Environment, and Griffith University.

• Questions?

Page 58: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Markets

Page 59: An experimental comparison of investment decisions under risk and ambiguity, with and without trade Timothy R. Capon and John G. Tisdell.

Ellsberg Phenomenon

Container A Container B

?