↓ Skip to main content

Does ambiguity aversion influence the framing effect during decision making?

Overview of attention for article published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
Title
Does ambiguity aversion influence the framing effect during decision making?
Published in
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, July 2014
DOI 10.3758/s13423-014-0688-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anaïs Osmont, Mathieu Cassotti, Marine Agogué, Olivier Houdé, Sylvain Moutier

Abstract

Decision-makers present a systematic tendency to avoid ambiguous options for which the level of risk is unknown. This ambiguity aversion is one of the most striking decision-making biases. Given that human choices strongly depend on the options' presentation, the purpose of the present study was to examine whether ambiguity aversion influences the framing effect during decision making. We designed a new financial decision-making task involving the manipulation of both frame and uncertainty levels. Thirty-seven participants had to choose between a sure option and a gamble depicting either clear or ambiguous probabilities. The results revealed a clear preference for the sure option in the ambiguity condition regardless of frame. However, participants presented a framing effect in both the risk and ambiguity conditions. Indeed, the framing effect was bidirectional in the risk condition and unidirectional in the ambiguity condition given that it did not involve preference reversal but only a more extreme choice tendency.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 86 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 17%
Student > Bachelor 15 17%
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Researcher 4 5%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 23 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 40 45%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 10%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Philosophy 1 1%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 23 26%