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.

We 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.