The Discounting of Ambiguous Information in Economic Decision Making

132 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

On the psychology of ‘if only’: Regret and the comparison between factual and counterfactual outcomes (2005, methodology): “Our present reasoning is based on research on the disjunction eVect (ShaWr & Tversky, 1992; Tversky & ShaWr, 1992; see also Van Dijk & Zeelenberg, 2003) that suggests that uncertainty and ambiguity may induce people to engage in nonconsequential reasoning.”
An investigation of appraisals in individuals vulnerable to excessive worry: the role of intolerance of uncertainty (2008, unknown): “As mentioned earlier, a dislike for uncertainty and ambiguity is actually normative and universal and most individuals prefer a certain outcome to one that is uncertain (Laurioloa & Levin, 2001; Lipshitz & Strauss, 1997; Loewenstein, Weber, Hsee, & Welch, 2001; van Dijk & Zeelenberg, 2003).”
Illusionary Progress in Loyalty Programs: Magnitudes, Reward Distances, and Step-Size Ambiguity (2011, background): “While studying how ambiguous information is interpreted in decision making, Van Dijk and Zeelenberg (2003) manipulated high ambiguity by providing a range of possible values ($200,000–$600,000, less precise) and low ambiguity by providing a precise estimate (either $200,000 or $600,000).”