Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

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

By Hsin-Hsien Liu and Andrew M. Colman

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

Topics: Ambiguity aversion, Ellsberg paradox, Loss aversion, Repeated decisions, Risk aversion
Publisher: Elsevier
Year: 2009
DOI identifier: 10.1016/j.joep.2009.02.001
OAI identifier: oai:lra.le.ac.uk:2381/7837
Journal:

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (1991). Additional tests of utility theory under unique and repeated conditions. doi
  2. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation under uncertainty. doi
  3. (1988). Ambiguity and rationality. doi
  4. (1985). Ambiguity and uncertainty in probabilistic inference. doi
  5. (2007). Ambiguous games: Evidence for strategic ambiguity aversion. doi
  6. (1989). An empirical evaluation of descriptive models of ambiguity reactions in choice situations. doi
  7. (1995). Categorical data analysis using the SAS System. doi
  8. (1976). Characterization of ambiguity in decision making. doi
  9. (1994). Contemplating single versus multiple encounters of a risky prospect. doi
  10. (1988). Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. doi
  11. (1981). Decision making in the short run. doi
  12. (1986). Decision making under ambiguity. doi
  13. (1982). Gambling decisions and information about expected value. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, doi
  14. (1985). Individual behavior under risk and under uncertainty: An experimental study. Theory and Decision, doi
  15. (1990). Moderation of preference reversals in the long run. doi
  16. (1995). Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle. doi
  17. (1992). On the framing of multiple prospects. doi
  18. (1999). On the robustness and possible accounts of ambiguity aversion. doi
  19. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. doi
  20. (1992). Recent developments in modeling preference: Uncertainty and ambiguity. doi
  21. (2006). Reflections on gains and losses: doi
  22. (1971). Reversals of preferences between bids and choices in gambling decisions. doi
  23. (1961). Risk ambiguity and the Savage axioms. doi
  24. (1963). Risk and uncertainty: A fallacy of large numbers.
  25. (1999). Risk aversion or myopia? Choices in repeated gambles and retirement investments. doi
  26. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. doi
  27. (1983). Risk: The Long and the Short. doi
  28. (2008). Size doesn’t really matter: Ambiguity aversion in Ellsberg urns with few balls. doi
  29. (1997). The effect of myopia and loss aversion on risk taking: An experimental test. doi
  30. (1968). The importance of variance preferences in gambling decisions. doi
  31. (1983). The role of second-order probabilities in decision making. In doi
  32. (1979). Utility theory: Axioms versus “paradoxes.” In doi
  33. (1987). Violation of utility theory in unique and repeated gambles. doi
  34. (1999). When and why do people avoid unknown probabilities in decisions under uncertainty? Testing some predictions from optimal foraging theory. doi
  35. (2005). When things don’t add up. doi
  36. (1996). When time is of the essence: Averaging, aspiration, and the short run. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.