• Graduate Programs
  • Research
  • Browse our Courses
  • Events
    • Events Calendar
    • Events Archive
    • Summer School
      • Applied Public Policy Evaluation
      • Deep Learning
      • Development Economics
      • Economics of Blockchain and Digital Currencies
      • Economics of Climate Change
      • The Economics of Crime
      • Foundations of Machine Learning with Applications in Python
      • From Preference to Choice: The Economic Theory of Decision-Making
      • Inequalities in Health and Healthcare
      • Marketing Research with Purpose
      • Markets with Frictions
      • Modern Toolbox for Spatial and Functional Data
      • Sustainable Finance
      • Tuition Fees and Payment
      • Business Data Science Summer School Program
    • Tinbergen Institute Lectures
    • 2026 Tinbergen Institute Opening Conference
    • Annual Tinbergen Institute Conference
  • News
  • Summer School
    • Applied Public Policy Evaluation
    • Deep Learning
    • Development Economics
    • Economics of Blockchain and Digital Currencies
    • Economics of Climate Change
    • The Economics of Crime
    • Foundations of Machine Learning with Applications in Python
    • From Preference to Choice: The Economic Theory of Decision-Making
    • Inequalities in Health and Healthcare
    • Marketing Research with Purpose
    • Markets with Frictions
    • Modern Toolbox for Spatial and Functional Data
    • Sustainable Finance
    • Tuition Fees and Payment
  • Alumni

Qiu, J. and Weitzel, U. (2016). Experimental evidence on valuation with multiple priors Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 53(1):55--74.


  • Journal
    Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

Popular models for decision making under ambiguity assume that people use not one but multiple priors. This paper is a first attempt to experimentally elicit the min and the max of multiple priors directly. In an ambiguous scenario we measure a participant{\textquoteright}s single prior, her min and max of multiple priors, and the valuation of an ambiguous asset with the same underlying states as the ambiguous scenario. We use the min and the max of multiple priors to directly test two popular multiple priors models: the maxmin model and the α maxmin model. We find more support for the α maxmin model: although people put about twice the weight on the minimum of multiple priors, they also consider the maximum. Furthermore, we indirectly elicit confidence weights over the whole set of multiple priors and test two additional models: variational preferences and the smooth model of ambiguity. Two particular versions of the variational preferences model explain less than the α maxmin but more than the maxmin model. Overall, the smooth model of ambiguity performs best among all models tested.