Abstract:Risk source plays an important role in risky decision making. Unlike “lottery risk” that arises from a stochastic process, “person-based risk” is originated from others’ decisions. Bohnet and Zeckhauser (2004) first studied the effect of risk source on risk preference using “trust game” task in which participants were asked to assign their “minimum acceptable probabilities (MAPs)” for securing the higher payoff, so as to make themselves just incline to the risky option from the sure one. It was found that the MAPs were generally higher when the occurrence of a certain outcome was determined by other person rather than a stochastic process. This phenomenon was named “betrayal aversion”. Nevertheless, Fetchenhauer and Dunning (2012) obtained quite different findings: participants were significantly more willing to choose the risky option in trust game than in lottery game when they were informed that their chance of drawing a white ball or interacting with a trustworthy person was about 50%. These inconsistent findings hint the necessity of undermining the causes of “betrayal aversion”. Hence the present study is to investigate how risk source and need for affiliation affect risky decision-making. In participants face a binary-choice trust game with two options: a certain option in which both the participant and the anonymous partner would earn ￥ 10 for sure, and a risky one in which the participant may have a “good” outcome (with probability of 50%, participant and partner would earn ￥ 15 respectively) or a “bad” outcome (50% probability, participant earns ￥ 8 and the partner earns ￥ 22). A between-subject design used to explore the effects of risk sources. In “lottery risk” condition, whether the risky outcome would be 15) 22) is depended on a lottery mechanism. In “person-based risk” condition, the outcome distribution depends on the partner’s choice. Participants in Experiment 1 were asked to calibrate their MAPs which could represent their risk preferences. In Experiment 2, participants were asked to choose between the certain option and the risky one directly. After that, their needs for affiliation were measured. The results of Experiment 1 showed that participants are more risk-averse when the outcome is determined by an anonymous partner rather than a lottery mechanism. Experiment 2 found that participants who have low-need for affiliation are betrayal averse, while people with high-need for affiliation prefer lottery risk and person-based risk the same. In between-subject experiments were designed to investigate further the effect of need for affiliation on decision-making by arousing the emotion of fear that was induced through watching a horror video in Experiment 3 or describing a frightening scenario in detail in Experiment 4. When emotion of fear aroused, individuals were found more risk-averse under lottery risk, but more risk-seeking under person-based risk. In other words, the betrayal aversion phenomenon even reversed when under fear. It was also found that the need for affiliation acts as a mediator between fear and risky decision making. The findings of “betrayal aversion” and “reversed betrayal aversion” suggested that risk sources are critical to risky decision making. Not only the probabilities but also the risk sources should be considered in evaluation of utility. Compared with the decision making under lottery risk, decision under person-based risk is more complicated. When trust is violated, people may experience betrayal costs. On the contrary, if the partner is trustworthy, people may reap extra psychological benefits such as satisfying the need for affiliation. This study deepened our understanding of trust and betrayal. To encourage trust, it is important to diminish the material costs of betrayal and to emphasize the warmth of interpersonal interaction as well.

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

Myopic Loss Aversion or Equate-to-differentiate Heuristic? A Heuristic Decision Making Model for Both Single and Aggregated Plays.

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

Ambiguity Attitudes over Time

Riskier for Me or for Others? the Role of Domain and Probability in Self-Other Differences, in Risky Decision-Making

The Moderate Effect of Cognitive Needs on the Options,Time and Decision Aversion for Consumers

Event-related Potentials and the Decision Making under Risk and Ambiguity

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

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

Ambiguity Preference in Waiting Time: Investigating the Desirability Effect and the Interplay of Temporal Description, Outcome Category, and Evaluation Mode

Is Ambiguity Aversion a Preference? Ambiguity Aversion without Asymmetric Information

The Effect of Learning on Ambiguity Attitudes

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

Ambiguity attitudes of individuals and groups in gain and loss domains

Ambiguity aversion in career decision-making: Its longitudinal prediction for college career outcomes.

Are ambiguity preferences aligned with risk preferences?

Randomization advice and ambiguity aversion

Risk source matters much in decision-making:Betrayal aversion and the role of need for affiliation

Decision‐making for others: Ambiguity attitudes

Robust Utility Maximization with Extremely Ambiguity-Loving and Ambiguity-Aversion Preferences

Social and Strategic Ambiguity Versus Betrayal Aversion.