The Formation Mechanism of Ambiguity Aversion: A Perspective Based on the Evaluability Hypothesis

Psychological Science ›› 2012, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (1): 177-179.

Previous Articles Next Articles

The Formation Mechanism of Ambiguity Aversion: A Perspective Based on the Evaluability Hypothesis

Received:2010-08-23 Revised:2011-05-13 Online:2012-01-20 Published:2012-01-20

模糊规避的形成机制：基于可评价性假设的视角

徐富明¹,张军伟²,刘腾飞³,蒋多³,文桂婵⁴

1. 华中师范大学
2.
3. 华中师范大学心理学院暨湖北省人的发展与心理健康重点实验室
4. 华中师范大学心理学院暨湖北省人的发展与心理健康重点实验室, 武汉 430079

通讯作者: 徐富明

Abstract

Abstract:

Ambiguity aversion refers to that people prefers events with known probabilities to similar ambiguous events where the decision maker does not know the values of the probabilities. Since ambiguity aversion was proposed by Ellsberg in 1961 years, lots of research has been done to it. Now there are three main models accounting for ambiguity aversion: other evaluation hypothesis, competence hypothesis and comparative ignorance hypothesis. Other evaluation hypothesis suggested that increasing the number of people watching a decision enhanced ambiguity aversion, and enhanced it more than other factors that they manipulated. Competence hypothesis suggested that people prefer betting on their own judgment over an equiprobable chance event when they consider themselves knowledgeable, but not otherwise. Comparative ignorance hypothesis suggested that ambiguity aversion increases with the perception that others are more competent and more knowledgeable. If people choose an ambiguous option and receive a bad outcome, then they fear criticisms by others. Such criticisms are easier to counter after a risky choice, when a bad outcome is more easily explained as bad luck, than after an ambiguous choice. To investigate the influence of joint evaluation and separate evaluation on individuals’ ambiguity aversion, a 2 (ambiguous event vs. risky event) * 2 ( joint evaluation vs. separate evaluation) mixed experimental design was adopted. Study investigate formation mechanism of ambiguity aversion from domains of chance events and natural events, paradigm of joint evaluation and separate evaluation was adopted. The results showed that, ambiguity aversion is produced by a comparison with less ambiguous events.

Key words: ambiguity aversion, joint evaluation, separate evaluation

摘要：

模糊规避是指在相同奖赏的情况下，决策者会力图规避从主观上判断具有模糊概率的事件而偏好具有相同精确概率的事件。本研究使用同时评价、单独评价的研究范式从随机事件和自然事件两个领域来探讨模糊规避的形成机制。研究结果表明，当风险事件和模糊事件同时评价时，个体倾向于模糊规避；当风险事件和模糊事件单独评价时，模糊规避会消失。

关键词: 模糊规避, 同时评价, 单独评价

徐富明张军伟刘腾飞蒋多文桂婵. 模糊规避的形成机制：基于可评价性假设的视角[J]. 心理科学, 2012, 35(1): 177-179.

References

张军伟, 徐富明, 刘腾飞, 陈雪玲, 蒋多. (2009). 行为决策中模糊规避研究的回顾与展望. 应用心理学, 15(3), 245–250. Becker, S. W., & Brownson, F. O. (1964). What price ambiguity? Or the role of ambiguity in decision making. Journal of Political Economy, 72, 62–73. Chatterjee, S., Heath, T. B., & Min, J. (2009). The susceptibility of mental accounting principles to evaluation mode effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22, 120–137. Curley, S. P., Yates, J. F., & Abrams, R. A. (1986). Psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 230–256. Di Mauro, C. (2008). Uncertainty aversion vs competence: An experimental market study. Theory and Decision, 64, 301–331. Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643–669. Fox, C. R., & See, K. E. (2003). Belief and preference in decision under uncertainty. In: Hardman, D., & Macchi, L. (Eds). Thinking: Psychological perspectives on reasoning, judgement and decision making, London: John Wiley, 273–314. Fox, C. R., & Tversky, A. (1995). Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 585–603. Fox, C. R., & Weber, M. (2002). Ambiguity aversion, comparative ignorance, and decision context. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 476–498. Gigliotti, G., & Sopher, B. (1996). The testing principle: Inductive reasoning and the Ellsberg paradox. Thinking & Reasoning, 2, 33–49. Heath, C., & Tversky, A. (1991). Preference and belief: Ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4, 5–28. Hsee, C. K. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 247–257. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 1325–1348. Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (1971). Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, 46–55. Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (1973). Response–induced reversals of preference in gambling: An extended replication in Las Vegas. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101, 16–22. Savage, L. J. (1954). The foundations of statistics, New York: John Wiley. Trautmann, S. T., Vieider, F. M., & Wakker, P. P. (2008). Causes of ambiguity aversion: Known versus unknown preferences. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 36, 225-243. van Boven, L., Loewenstein, G., & Dunning, D. (2003). Mispredicting the endowment effect: Underestimation of owners’ selling prices by buyer’s agents. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 51, 351–365. van Putten, M., Zeelenberg, M., & van Dijk, E. (2008). Multiple options in the past and the present: The impact on inaction inertia. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21, 519–531.

The Formation Mechanism of Ambiguity Aversion: A Perspective Based on the Evaluability Hypothesis

模糊规避的形成机制：基于可评价性假设的视角

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

References

Related Articles 1

Recommended Articles

Metrics