Abstract:Ambiguity aversion refers to the phenomenon that people prefer events with known probabilities to similar ambiguous events in which the decision maker does not know the values of the probabilities. Since ambiguity aversion was proposed by Ellsberg in 1961, there have been three main models accounting for ambiguity aversion: the other evaluation hypothesis, the competence hypothesis and the comparative ignorance hypothesis. The other evaluation hypothesis suggests that increasing the number of people watching a decision enhances ambiguity aversion, and enhances it more than other factors that researchers manipulate.The competence hypothesis suggests that people prefer betting on their own judgment to an equiprobable chance event only when they consider themselves knowledgeable, but not otherwise. The comparative ignorance hypothesis suggests that ambiguity aversion increases with the perception that others are more competent and more knowledgeable. 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. In the 1first experiment, the subjects were required to indicate their WTP of ambiguous events and risky events. In the 2nd experiment, every piece of experimental episode consisted of "below" and "not below" conditions under which the subjects were required to indicate their WTP. The research revealed that there was no significant difference in WTP between ambiguous events and risky events when evaluated simultaneously, when they were separately evaluated, there was a significant difference in WTP between ambiguous events and risky events. The results indicate that, when risky events and ambiguous events are evaluated simultaneously, people opt for ambiguity aversion; in case of a separate evaluation, however, ambiguity aversion will disappear.

Ambiguity attitudes toward natural and artificial sources in gain and loss domains

Ambiguity attitudes of individuals and groups in gain and loss domains

Hey, What is Your Choice? Uncertainty and Inconsistency Enhance Subjective Anticipation of Upcoming Information in a Social Context

The Influence of the Magnitude of Probability, Loss-Gain Outcome and Need for Cognitive Closure on Ambiguity Aversion

Ambiguity Attitudes over Time

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

Ambiguity attitudes for real-world sources: field evidence from a large sample of investors

Learning about the Ellsberg Paradox reduces, but does not abolish, ambiguity aversion

Are the Poor Worse at Dealing with Ambiguity?

Losing Faith or Appetite? the Impact of Payoff Experiences on Ambiguity Attitudes, Beliefs, and Investment Choice

The Effects of Ambiguity on Loss Contingency Evaluation by Auditors and Investors

Ambiguity Aversion, Information Acquisition, And Market Opacity

The Neurobase of Ambiguity Loss Aversion about Decision Making

The Effect of Learning on Ambiguity Attitudes

A Review of Ambiguity Aversion in Behavioral Decision Making

Is Ambiguity Aversion a Preference? Ambiguity Aversion without Asymmetric Information

A Review and Prospect of Ambiguity Aversion in Behavioral Decision Making

Accounting Conservatism, Business Strategy, and Ambiguity

The impact of ambiguity-loving attitude on market participation and asset pricing

Testing Dynamic Consistency and Consequentialism under Ambiguity