Go to page

Bibliographic Metadata


Ambiguity aversion guides decision makers to choose a risky rather than an ambiguous prospect, a patternthat is not always beneficial. For example, even nowadays, private pensions often build on savingsaccounts, which are risky prospects with known probabilities, instead of stocks as the former ensure safereturns with fixed interest rates. In comparison, expected returns of stocks, which are ambiguous prospectswith unknown probabilities, are significantly higher. This study aims at facilitating a better understandingof ambiguity aversion and suggests measures to improve decision-making. In our experiment, subjects areconfronted with either decisions under risk or decisions under ambiguity. Controlling for risk attitudes,we estimate category weights in both domains and find significant differences, which indicate the presentof ambiguity aversion. Contrary to our predictions on the amplifying effect of multiple sources of ambiguity,we find that category weights of ambiguity and risk converge each other when a second sourceof ambiguity is implemented. That is, we point out another option to deal with ambiguity when peoplehave to choose between risky and ambiguous prospects. Instead of minimizing ambiguity, the introductionof a second source of ambiguity might help to compare alternatives with less biases through ambiguityaversion.