International audienceWe often deal with uncertain events for which no probabilities are known. Several normative models have been proposed. Descriptive studies have usually been qualitative, or they estimated ambiguity aversion through one single number. This paper introduces the source method, a tractable method for quantitatively analyzing uncertainty empirically. The theoretical key is the distinction between different sources of uncertainty, within which subjective (choice-based) probabilities can still be defined. Source functions convert those subjective probabilities into willingness to bet. We apply our method in an experiment, where we do not commit to particular ambiguity attitudes but let the data speak

This paper reports on two experiments that test the descriptive validity of ambiguity models using a natural source of uncertainty (the evolution of stock indices) and both gains and losses. We observed violations of probabilistic sophistication, violations that imply a fourfold pattern of ambiguity attitudes: ambiguity aversion for likely gains and unlikely losses and ambiguity seeking for unlikely gains and likely losses. Our data are most consistent with prospect theory and, to a lesser extent, α-maxmin expected utility and Choquet expected utility. Models with uniform ambiguity attitudes are inconsistent with most of the observed behavioral patterns. (JEL D81, D83, G11, G12, G14)

Measurements of ambiguity attitudes have so far focused on artificial events, where (subjective) beliefs can be derived from symmetry of events and can be then controlled for. For natural events as relevant in applications, such a symmetry and corresponding control are usually absent, precluding traditional measurement methods. This paper introduces two indexes of ambiguity attitudes, one for aversion and the other for insensitivity/perception, for which we can control for likelihood beliefs even if these are unknown. Hence, we can now measure ambiguity attitudes for natural events. Our indexes are valid under many ambiguity theories, do not require expected utility for risk, and are easy to elicit in practice. We use our indexes to investigate time pressure under ambiguity. People do not become more ambiguity averse under time pressure but become more insensitive (perceive more ambiguity). These findings are plausible and, hence, support the validity of our indexes.

Although reference dependence plays a central role in explaining behavior, little is known about the way that reference points are selected. This paper identifies empirically which reference point people use in decision under risk. We assume a comprehensive reference-dependent model that nests the main reference-dependent theories, including prospect theory, and that allows for isolating the reference point rule from other behavioral parameters. Our experiment involved high stakes with payoffs up to a week's salary. We used an optimal design to select the choices in the experiment and Bayesian hierarchical modeling for estimation. The most common reference points were the status quo and a security level (the maximum of the minimal outcomes of the prospects in a choice). We found little support for the use of expectations-based reference points.

Machina (2009) introduced two examples that falsify Choquet expected utility, presently one of the most popular models of ambiguity. This article shows that Machina's examples falsify not only the model mentioned, but also four other popular models for ambiguity of the literature, namely maxmin expected utility, variational preferences, α-maxmin, and the smooth model of ambiguity aversion. Thus, Machina's examples pose a challenge to most of the present field of ambiguity. Finally, the paper discusses how an alternative representation of ambiguity-averse preferences works to accommodate the Machina paradoxes and what drives the results. (JEL D81)