Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 572–577 | Cite as

Does ambiguity aversion influence the framing effect during decision making?

  • Anaïs Osmont
  • Mathieu CassottiEmail author
  • Marine Agogué
  • Olivier Houdé
  • Sylvain Moutier
Brief Report

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.

Keywords

Ambiguity aversion Framing effect Loss aversion Decision-making under ambiguity Decision-making under risk 

References

  1. Camerer, C., & Weber, M. (1992). Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 325–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cassotti, M., Habib, M., Poirel, N., Aïte, A., Houdé, O., & Moutier, S. (2012). Positive emotional context eliminates framing effect in decision making. Emotion, 12(5), 926–931.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. De Martino, B., Kumaran, D., Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. J. (2006). Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science, 313, 684–687.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. De Martino, B., Harrison, N. A., Knafo, S., Bird, G., & Dolan, R. J. (2008). Explaining enhanced logical consistency during decision making in autism. Journal of Neuroscience, 28(42), 10746–10750.Google Scholar
  5. De Martino, B., Camerer, C. F., & Adolphs, R. (2010). Amygdala damage eliminates monetary loss aversion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(8), 3788–3792.Google Scholar
  6. De Neys, W. (2006). Automatic-heuristic and executive-analytic processing during reasoning: Chronometric and dual-task considerations. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(6), 1070–1100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. De Neys, W. (2012). Bias and conflict: A case for logical intuitions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 28–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity and Savage axioms. Quaterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Evans, J. S. B. T. (2010). Thinking twice: Two minds in one brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Ho, J. L. Y., Keller, L. R., & Keltika, P. (2002). Effects of outcome and probabilistic ambiguity on managerial choices. The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 24(1), 47–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hsu, M., Bhatt, M., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., & Camerer, C. F. (2005). Neural systems responding to degrees of uncertainty in human decision-making. Science, 310, 1680–1683.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Huettel, S. A., Stowe, C. J., Gordon, E. M., Warner, B. T., & Platt, M. L. (2006). Neural signatures of economic prefer- ences for risk and ambiguity. Neuron, 49, 765–775.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Inukai, K., & Takahashi, T. (2009). Decision under ambiguity: Effects of sign and magnitude. International Journal of Neuroscience, 119, 1170–1178.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kahn, B. E., & Sarin, R. K. (1988). Modeling ambiguity in decisions under uncertainty. Journal on Consumer Research, 15, 265–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective of judgment and choice. American Psychologist, 58, 697–720.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2007). Frames and brains: Elicitation and control of response tendencies. Cognitive Science, 2, 45–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1983). Choices, values and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Keren, G., & Gerritsen, E. M. L. (1999). On the robustness and possible accounts of ambiguity aversion. Acta Psychologica, 103, 149–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Levy, I., Snell, J., Nelson, A. J., Rustichini, A., & Glimcher, P. W. (2010). Neural representation of subjective value under risk and ambiguity. Journal of Neurophysiology, 103(2), 1036–1047.Google Scholar
  20. Loewenstein, G., Rick, S., & Cohen, J. D. (2008). Neuroeconomics. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 647–672.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Pulford, B. D., & Colman, A. M. (2008). Size doesn’t really matter: Ambiguity Aversion in Ellsberg Urns with Few Balls. Experimental Psychology, 55, 31–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Reyna, V. F. (2004). How people make decisions that involve risk: A dual-processes approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(2), 60–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reyna, V. F. (2012). A new intuitionism: Meaning, memory, and development in fuzzy-trace theory. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(3), 332–359.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Rubaltelli, E., Rumiati, R., & Slovic, S. (2010). Do ambiguity avoidance and the comparative ignorance hypothesis depend on people’s affective reactions? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 40(3), 243–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith, K., Dickhaut, J., McCabe, K., & Pardo, J. V. (2002). Neuronal substrates for choice under ambiguity, risk, gain, and losses. Management Science, 48(6), 711–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stanton, S. J., Mullette-Gillman, O. A., McLaurin, E. E., Kuhn, C. M., LaBar, K. S., Platt, M. L., & Huettel, S. A. (2011). Low- and high-testosterone individuals exhibit decreased aversion to economic risk. Psychological Science, 22(4), 447–453.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Tymula, A., Rosenberg Belkamer, L. A., Roy, A. K., Ruderman, L., Manson, K., Glimcher, P. W., & Levy, I. (2012). Adolesxents’s risk taking behavior is driven by tolerance to ambiguity. Proceeding of the Nationnal Academy of Sciences, 109(42), 17135–17140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang, X. T. (1996). Framing effects: Dynamics and task domains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68, 145–157.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Zheng, H., Wang, X. T., & Zhu, L. (2010). Framing effects: Behavioral dynamics and neural basis. Neuropsychologia, 48, 3198–3204.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anaïs Osmont
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mathieu Cassotti
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Marine Agogué
    • 3
  • Olivier Houdé
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • Sylvain Moutier
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratory for the Psychology of Child Development and Education, CNRS UMR 8240Paris Descartes UniversityParisFrance
  2. 2.Caen UniversityCaenFrance
  3. 3.Centre de Gestion Scientifique, Mines ParisTechParisFrance
  4. 4.Institut Universitaire de FranceParisFrance

Personalised recommendations