IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joepsy/v30y2009i3p277-284.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ambiguity aversion in the long run: Repeated decisions under risk and uncertainty

Author

Listed:
  • Liu, Hsin-Hsien
  • Colman, Andrew M.

Abstract

In two experiments, decision makers chose between risky and ambiguous gambles under conditions of both single (unrepeated) and multiply repeated choices. The gambles were presented either as modified Ellsberg urn choices or as marketing strategy decisions. In both experiments, decision makers chose the ambiguous options more frequently in the repeated-choice than the single-choice conditions. More decision makers made risky single choices and ambiguous repeated choices than ambiguous single choices and risky repeated choices. Decision makers expressed more self-rated confidence in their repeated than their single ambiguous choices. These findings are interpreted in the light of findings on repeated decision making under risk and theories of loss aversion and ambiguity aversion.

Suggested Citation

  • Liu, Hsin-Hsien & Colman, Andrew M., 2009. "Ambiguity aversion in the long run: Repeated decisions under risk and uncertainty," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 277-284, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:30:y:2009:i:3:p:277-284
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-4870(09)00016-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard H. Thaler & Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman & Alan Schwartz, 1997. "The Effect of Myopia and Loss Aversion on Risk Taking: An Experimental Test," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 647-661.
    2. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 1995. "Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(1), pages 73-92.
    3. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    4. Lopes, Lola L., 1996. "When Time Is of the Essence: Averaging, Aspiration, and the Short Run," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 179-189, March.
    5. Daniel Ellsberg, 2000. "Risk, Ambiguity and the Savage Axioms," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7605, David K. Levine.
    6. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 1999. "Risk Aversion or Myopia? Choices in Repeated Gambles and Retirement Investments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(3), pages 364-381, March.
    7. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    9. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    10. Pulford, Briony D. & Colman, Andrew M., 2007. "Ambiguous games: Evidence for strategic ambiguity aversion," MPRA Paper 86345, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Einhorn, Hillel J & Hogarth, Robin M, 1986. "Decision Making under Ambiguity," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 225-250, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aloysius, John A., 2005. "Ambiguity aversion and the equity premium puzzle: A re-examination of experimental data on repeated gambles," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 635-655, October.
    2. Thomas Langer & Martin Weber, 2001. "Prospect Theory, Mental Accounting, and Differences in Aggregated and Segregated Evaluation of Lottery Portfolios," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(5), pages 716-733, May.
    3. Venkatraman, Srinivasan & Aloysius, John A. & Davis, Fred D., 2006. "Multiple prospect framing and decision behavior: The mediational roles of perceived riskiness and perceived ambiguity," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 59-73, September.
    4. Iñigo Iturbe-Ormaetxe & Giovanni Ponti & Josefa Tomás, 2016. "Myopic Loss Aversion under Ambiguity and Gender Effects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-11, December.
    5. Peter, Richard & Ying, Jie, 2020. "Do you trust your insurer? Ambiguity about contract nonperformance and optimal insurance demand," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 938-954.
    6. Mercè Roca & Robin Hogarth & A. Maule, 2006. "Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 175-194, May.
    7. Jean Desrochers & J. Francois Outreville, 2013. "Uncertainty, Ambiguity and Risk Taking: an experimental investigation of consumer behavior and demand for insurance," ICER Working Papers 10-2013, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    8. Shawn P. Curley, 2007. "The application of Dempster-Shafer theory demonstrated with justification provided by legal evidence," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 257-276, October.
    9. Emily Haisley & Romel Mostafa & George Loewenstein, 2008. "Myopic risk-seeking: The impact of narrow decision bracketing on lottery play," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 57-75, August.
    10. Huber, Jürgen & Kirchler, Michael & Stefan, Matthias, 2014. "Experimental evidence on varying uncertainty and skewness in laboratory double-auction markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PB), pages 798-809.
    11. Koch, Christopher & Schunk, Daniel, 2007. "The Case for Limited Auditor Liability - The Effects of Liability Size on Risk Aversion and Ambiguity Aversion," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 07-04, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    12. Eduard Marinov, 2017. "The 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 117-159.
    13. Langer, Thomas & Weber, Martin, 2005. "Myopic prospect theory vs. myopic loss aversion: how general is the phenomenon?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 25-38, January.
    14. Stefan Zeisberger & Thomas Langer & Martin Weber, 2012. "Why does myopia decrease the willingness to invest? Is it myopic loss aversion or myopic loss probability aversion?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 35-50, January.
    15. Weber, Elke U. & Johnson, Eric J., 2012. "Psychology and behavioral economics lessons for the design of a green growth strategy," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6240, The World Bank.
    16. Langer, Thomas & Weber, Martin, 2000. "The Impact of Feedback Frequency on Risk Taking: How general is the Phenomenon?," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 00-49, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    17. Barberis, Nicholas & Thaler, Richard, 2003. "A survey of behavioral finance," Handbook of the Economics of Finance, in: G.M. Constantinides & M. Harris & R. M. Stulz (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Finance, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 18, pages 1053-1128, Elsevier.
    18. Shaw, W. Douglass & Woodward, Richard T., 2008. "Why environmental and resource economists should care about non-expected utility models," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 66-89, January.
    19. Laurent Denant-Boemont & Olivier L’Haridon, 2013. "La rationalité à l'épreuve de l'économie comportementale," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(2), pages 35-89.
    20. Gary Charness & Uri Gneezy, 2010. "Portfolio Choice And Risk Attitudes: An Experiment," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 48(1), pages 133-146, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:30:y:2009:i:3:p:277-284. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joep .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.