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

We conduct experiments measuring individual behavior under compound risk, simple risk, and ambiguity. We focus on (1) treatment of compound risks relative to simple risks and (2) the relationship between compound risk attitudes and ambiguity attitudes. We find that compound risks are valued differently than corresponding reduced simple risks. These differences measure compound risk attitudes. These attitudes display more aversion as the reduced probability of the winning event increases. Like Halevy [Halevy Y (2007) Ellsberg revisited: An experimental study. Econometrica 75:503-536], we find an association between compound risk reduction and ambiguity neutrality. However, in contrast to the almost perfect identification in Halevy's data, we find a substantially weaker relation in both directions. First, a majority of our ambiguity-neutral subjects fail to reduce compound risk. Second, almost a quarter of our subjects who reduce compound risk are nonneutral to ambiguity. All of the latter come from the more quantitatively sophisticated part of our subject pool.Data, as supplemental material, are available at http://dx