Task formats and ambiguity aversion

This paper proposes that task format (choosing or rejecting) moderates the effect of ambiguity aversion. Specifically, an ambiguous option is more attractive in a choosing task than in a rejecting task compared with a risky option. The author performed three experiments to test the propositions. In the first experiment, participants showed less ambiguity aversion when they had to choose a preferred option (risky or ambiguous) compared with when they had to reject an option they preferred less. In the second experiment with a monetary incentive, participants had to form a cash‐equivalent estimate for both a risky gamble and an ambiguous gamble in a traditional Ellsberg scenario. The ambiguous option emerged as more attractive than the risky option in the choosing task compared with the rejecting task. The third experiment showed that the participants' decision rationale mediated the effect of the task format on choice. These three experiments support the proposition that task formats moderate the effect of ambiguity aversion. On the basis of the findings, the author provides suggestions for practice and further research. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

模糊规避的形成机制：基于可评价性假设的视角

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。     

Is luck on my side? Optimism,pessimism, and ambiguity aversion

The influences of optimism and pessimism on ambiguity aversion were investigated in two tasks that manipulated the presence or absence of a potentially competitive experimenter. A total of 112 participants chose which option—ambiguous or known-risk—they preferred in the two slightly differing Ellsberg urns tasks. Optimism was measured using the Extended Life Orientation Test (ELOT). Highly optimistic people showed significantly less ambiguity aversion than less optimistic people when information was given that the number of balls was randomly determined. This pattern was present but less pronounced in the condition when the composition of the ambiguous urn could be interpreted as being influenced (rigged) by the experimenter. Pessimism was uninfluential. Perceptions of the situation, especially the degree of trust in the experimenter, were significantly influenced by the participants' optimism. People who do not have highly optimistic personalities tend to shy away from choosing ambiguous options. When ambiguity is clear, and trust issues are removed, people's optimistic outlook influences their degree of ambiguity aversion and thus their decisions.     

Ambiguity Attitudes over Time

Previous research demonstrates that individuals exhibit a stronger level of ambiguity aversion for high probabilities than for low probabilities. Given that risky and ambiguous prospects are often unresolved until a future date (e.g., investment decisions, new product launches, and medical interventions), this study examines the impact of time on ambiguity preferences at different probability levels. Our experimental results indicate that although ambiguity preferences for low‐probability events remain constant, a robust effect of time occurs for high‐probability events. More specifically, temporal distance mitigates ambiguity aversion. This effect is consistent for different elicitation methods (preference rating and probability–ambiguity trade‐off tasks). We propose a dual‐process model (affective versus cognitive processing styles) to explain our results. Affective processing for high‐probability lotteries resolved in the current period increases ambiguity aversion, while cognitive processing leads to less ambiguity‐averse choices for future lotteries. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The role of competition and knowledge in the Ellsberg task

Ambiguity avoidance denotes people's preference for gambling situations with known over unknown, or ambiguous, probability distributions. In four experiments we provide evidence for the interaction between competitiveness and knowledge in Ellsberg's task, in which people have a choice between a risky box (distribution of balls known) and an ambiguous box (distribution of balls not known). If the situation is perceived as competitive (the experimenter or an opponent is responsible for composing the boxes) people avoid ambiguity by betting on the box with the known probability distribution. If the task is perceived as cooperative (a partner or friend is composing the boxes) people are indifferent toward ambiguity or even ambiguity seeking. In addition, we find that people expect their winning odds to be less than even in the ambiguous box. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

People higher in self-control do not necessarily experience more happiness: Regulatory focus also affects subjective well-being

A number of studies have shown that self-control is a key variable influencing subjective well-being (SWB). The present research demonstrated the effects of regulatory focus on SWB. Study 1 surveyed college students and found that (1) promotion-dominant people reported more SWB than prevention-dominant people, even after controlling for the effect of TSC as a covariate, and (2) the direct effect of promotion focus on SWB was significant, but the direct effect of prevention focus on SWB was not significant in the model with TSC as a mediator. Study 2 manipulated situational regulatory foci and required participants to execute a self-control task. The results showed that the two groups did not differ in task performance, or self-control, however, the promotion-focused group reported more task pleasure. These results indicate that promotion focused people are happier than prevention focused people during goal pursuit, that people can chronically and situationally benefit from promotion focus, and moreover, that people higher in self-control do not necessarily experience more SWB.     

Everyday risk taking as a function of regulatory focus

Uncertainty is an inherent aspect of everyday life. However, faced with uncertainty, some individuals take risks more eagerly than others. Regulatory focus theory may explain such differences because risky behavior may arise naturally from the eagerness of promotion focused individuals, while safe behavior may arise naturally from the vigilance of prevention focused individuals. A highly relevant real-life context for studying risk is mobility, as engaging in traffic inherently carries uncertainty about negative outcomes. We present two studies showing a direct link between regulatory focus and risky behavior going beyond traditional laboratory approaches. In both naturalistic speeding behavior (Study 1) and simulated risk taking (Study 2) promotion focus was positively, and prevention focus was negatively related to actual risky behavior.     

Regulatory Focus and the Interpersonal Dynamics of Romantic Partners’ Personal Goal Discussions

Guided by regulatory focus theory, we examined how romantic partners’ chronic concerns with promotion (advancement) and prevention (security) shape the interpersonal dynamics of couples’ conversations about different types of personal goals. Members of 95 couples (N = 190) first completed chronic regulatory focus measures and then engaged in videotaped discussions of two types of goals that were differentially relevant to promotion and prevention concerns. Participants also completed measures of goal‐ and partner‐relevant perceptions. Independent observers rated the discussions for support‐related behaviors. Highly promotion‐focused people approached their partners more, perceived greater partner responsiveness, and received more support when discussing goals that were promotion‐relevant and that they perceived as less attainable. When partners’ responsiveness to promotion‐relevant goals was low, highly promotion‐focused people reported greater self‐efficacy regarding these goals. Highly prevention‐focused people perceived more responsiveness when partners were less distancing during discussions of their prevention‐relevant goals, and greater responsiveness perceptions reassured them that these goals are less disruptive to the relationship. These findings suggest that chronic concerns with promotion and prevention orient people to their relationship environment in ways that are consistent with these distinct motivational needs, especially when discussing goals that increase the salience of these needs.     

Self‐other decision‐making differences in loss aversion: A regulatory focus perspective

Drawing on a cultural perspective, we examined whether differences in self‐other decision making documented in the West can be replicated in an Eastern context. Study 1 revealed that Chinese participants showed self‐other decision‐making differences in loss aversion similar to those observed in Western participants; loss aversion differed depending on the type of decision recipient, and trait regulatory focus moderated the self‐other decision‐making difference. Study 2 found a mediating effect of situational prevention but not promotion focus on the relationship between decision makers’ roles and loss aversion. Furthermore, both studies revealed that participants did not show a preference for loss aversion, suggesting that the baseline of self‐other decision‐making differences has shifted in China compared to the West.     

Attributions for ambiguity in a treatment-decision context can create ambiguity aversion or seeking

The phenomenon of ambiguity aversion suggests that people prefer options that offer precisely rather than imprecisely known chances of success. However, past work on people's responses to ambiguity in health treatment contexts found ambiguity seeking rather than aversion. The present work addressed whether such findings reflected a broad tendency for ambiguity seeking in health treatment contexts or whether specific attributions for ambiguity play a substantial role. In three studies, people choose between two treatment options that involved similar underlying probabilities, except that the probabilities for one option involved ambiguity. The attributions offered for the ambiguity played an important role in the results. For example, when the range of probabilities associated with an ambiguous treatment was attributed to the fact that different studies yield different results, participants tended to show ambiguity aversion or indifference. However, when the range was attributed to something that participants could control (e.g., regular application of a cream) or something about which they were overoptimistic (e.g., their immune system function), participants tended to show ambiguity seeking. Health professionals should be mindful of how people will interpret and use information about ambiguity when choosing among treatments.     

不确定性容忍度对模糊决策中决策偏好的影响及其情景依赖性*

研究以Ellsberg选瓶任务为决策材料,探讨了不同任务特征下个体不确定性容忍度对模糊决策中决策偏好的影响。结果发现,获益情景下:高概率时高、低容忍度个体对模糊选项的选择无显著差异,均偏好模糊规避;中概率时低容忍度个体比高容忍度个体表现出更低程度的模糊规避,前者倾向于模糊中立,后者倾向于模糊规避;低概率时两者对模糊选项的选择无显著差异,均倾向于模糊中立。损失情景下:高概率时两者对模糊选项的选择无显著差异,均倾向于模糊寻求;中概率时低容忍度比高容忍度个体更偏好模糊寻求,前者倾向于模糊寻求,后者倾向于模糊中立;低概率时两者对模糊选项的选择无显著差异,均倾向于模糊规避。这表明,不确定性容忍度对模糊决策偏好产生作用,但这种作用会受到损益概率和损益结果的影响,具有情景依赖性。     

Satisficing when buying information

In two studies expected value, expected utility, and satisficing approaches to one's decision to buy information were compared. The task for the first study was to judge the maximum worth of information by bidding to reduce an ambiguous prospect to a risky one when given an option between a risky prospect and an ambiguous one. A within-subjects design was used in which, for the risky prospect, the probability of gain and expected value were varied. The results were inconsistent with both expected value and expected utility models, but were consistent with a satisficing strategy. The second study was similar to the first but with context changes in the stimuli and a slightly different decision task. The results showed that the effects are robust across task and context. The main behavioral effect is that people appear more willing to buy information that may decrease an expected loss than information that may increase an expected gain. A decision justification principle is consistent with that effect.     

Regulatory Focus and the Probability Estimates of Conjunctive and Disjunctive Events

Prior research has shown that people overestimate the likelihood of conjunctive events and underestimate the likelihood of disjunctive events. We evaluated whether people's regulatory focus success was related to the magnitude of these judgmental biases. Regulatory focus theory posits that people are guided by two distinct motivational systems—promotion focus and prevention focus. When people are promotion focused they attempt to bring their actual selves into alignment with their ideal selves (standards reflecting wishes and aspirations). When people are prevention focused they attempt to bring their actual selves into alignment with their ought selves (standards reflecting duties and obligations). As predicted, promotion success (i.e., congruence between actual and ideal selves) was positively related to the accuracy of disjunctive probability estimates, whereas prevention success (i.e., congruence between actual and ought selves) was not. Also as predicted, greater prevention success led to more accurate conjunctive probability estimates, whereas greater promotion success did not.     

Ambiguity attitudes in qualitative contexts: The role of prior beliefs

Most studies of ambiguity aversion rely on experimental paradigms involving monetary bets. Thus, the extent to which ambiguity aversion occurs outside of such contexts is much less understood, particularly when the situation cannot easily be reduced to numerical terms. The present work seeks to understand whether people prefer to avoid ambiguous decisions in a variety of different qualitative domains (e.g., work, family, love, friendship, exercise, study, and health), and, if so, to determine the role played by prior beliefs in those domains. Across three studies, we presented participants with 24 vignettes and measured the degree to which they preferred risk to ambiguity in each. We also asked them for their prior probability estimates about the likely outcomes in the ambiguous events. Ambiguity aversion was observed in the vast majority of vignettes, but at different magnitudes. It was predicted by whether the vignette involved gain or loss as well as by people's prior beliefs; however, the heterogeneity between people meant that the role of prior beliefs was only evident in an individual-level analysis (i.e., not at the group level). Our results suggest that the desire to avoid ambiguity occurs in a wide variety of qualitative contexts but to different degrees for different people and may be partially driven by unfavorable prior estimates of the likely outcomes of the ambiguous events.     

Regulatory fit in framing strategy of parental persuasive messages to young children

The present research examined regulatory fit in parental messages aimed at young children. Study 1 measured parents' chronic regulatory focus, asking them to select either positively or negatively framed messages for promotion‐ and prevention‐focused outcomes. The results showed that parents preferred positive frames for promotion‐focused messages and negative frames for prevention‐focused messages. Furthermore, parents with a chronic promotion focus favored a positively framed strategy more than parents with a prevention focus. Study 2 found that parents adopted different message strategies depending on whether they favored an active responsive or an active restrictive parenting style. Together, these findings demonstrate for the first time the applicability of regulatory focus/fit theory to explain parents' preferences for positively and negatively framed messages targeting children.     

Effects of regulatory focus on endorsement of religious beliefs

Regulatory focus has an impact on different judgments. Specifically, promotion focus is directed at achieving positive outcome whereas prevention focus is directed at preventing negative outcomes. Thus, people in promotion focus endorse positive outcome-framed messages whereas people in prevention focus endorse negative outcome-framed messages. In two experiments, we examined whether this holds true for religious beliefs. In Experiment 1, participants were undergraduate students; we found the expected interaction between regulatory focus and verse frame. In Experiment 2, we replicated this finding with participants from conservative Lutheran communities, demonstrating that there was a transient influence of induced regulatory focus. This finding suggests that regulatory focus either is difficult to discount or is not a peripheral cue that is used in heuristic processing only, but an internal state that has a pervasive impact even if people are highly motivated to process information systematically.     

The attractiveness of enriched and impoverished options: culture, self-construal, and regulatory focus

The authors propose that there is a systematic impact of a person's activated self-construal (interdependent vs. independent) on the evaluation of enriched and impoverished options. This hypothesis is tested using a cross-country comparison of participants from China and the United States (Study 1) and by priming self-construal (Study 2) and regulatory focus (Study 3). Results show that people with an independent self-construal and a promotion focus perceive enriched options as more attractive than impoverished options. Conversely, people with an interdependent self-construal and a prevention focus perceive enriched options as less attractive than impoverished options. Mediation analyses show that the effect of cultural orientation operates through self-construal. In turn, self-construal operates through activated regulatory focus. Analysis of cognitive responses shows that the effect of regulatory focus is mediated by positive/negative thoughts about option attributes.