fbpx
Wikipedia

Ambiguity effect

The ambiguity effect is a cognitive tendency where decision making is affected by a lack of information, or "ambiguity".[1] The effect implies that people tend to select options for which the probability of a favorable outcome is known, over an option for which the probability of a favorable outcome is unknown. The effect was first described by Daniel Ellsberg in 1961.[2]

Example edit

As an example, consider a bucket containing 30 balls. The balls are either red, black or white. Ten of the balls are red, and the remaining 20 are either black or white, with all combinations of black and white being equally likely. In option X, drawing a red ball wins a person $100, and in option Y, drawing a black ball wins them $100. The probability of picking a winning ball is the same for both options X and Y. In option X, the probability of selecting a winning ball is 1 in 3 (10 red balls out of 30 total balls). In option Y, despite the fact that the number of black balls is uncertain, the probability of selecting a winning ball is also 1 in 3. This is because the number of black balls is equally distributed among all possibilities between 0 and 20. The difference between the two options is that in option X, the probability of a favorable outcome is known, but in option Y, the probability of a favorable outcome is unknown ("ambiguous").

In spite of the equal probability of a favorable outcome, people have a greater tendency to select a ball under option X, where the probability of selecting a winning ball is perceived to be more certain. The uncertainty as to the number of black balls means that option Y tends to be viewed less favorably. Despite the fact that there could possibly be twice as many black balls as red balls, people tend not to want to take the opposing risk that there may be fewer than 10 black balls. The "ambiguity" behind option Y means that people tend to favor option X, even when the probability is the same.

Explanation edit

One possible explanation of the effect is that people have a rule of thumb (heuristic) to avoid options where information is missing.[3][4] This will often lead them to seek out the missing information. In many cases, though, the information cannot be obtained. The effect is often the result of calling some particular missing piece of information to the person's attention.

See also edit

References edit

  1. ^ Croskerry, Pat; Cosby, Karen S. (2009). Patient Safety in Emergency Medicine. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p. 220. ISBN 978-0-7817-7727-8.
  2. ^ Borcherding, Katrin; Laričev, Oleg Ivanovič; Messick, David M. (1990). Contemporary Issues in Decision Making. North-Holland. p. 50. ISBN 978-0-444-88618-7.
  3. ^ Frisch, Deborah; Baron, Jonathan (1988). "Ambiguity and rationality". Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 1 (3): 149–157. doi:10.1002/bdm.3960010303.
  4. ^ Ritov, Ilana; Baron, Jonathan (1990). "Reluctance to vaccinate: Omission bias and ambiguity". Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 3 (4): 263–277. doi:10.1002/bdm.3960030404.

ambiguity, effect, this, article, needs, additional, citations, verification, please, help, improve, this, article, adding, citations, reliable, sources, unsourced, material, challenged, removed, find, sources, news, newspapers, books, scholar, jstor, june, 20. This article needs additional citations for verification Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources Unsourced material may be challenged and removed Find sources Ambiguity effect news newspapers books scholar JSTOR June 2023 Learn how and when to remove this template message The ambiguity effect is a cognitive tendency where decision making is affected by a lack of information or ambiguity 1 The effect implies that people tend to select options for which the probability of a favorable outcome is known over an option for which the probability of a favorable outcome is unknown The effect was first described by Daniel Ellsberg in 1961 2 Contents 1 Example 2 Explanation 3 See also 4 ReferencesExample editAs an example consider a bucket containing 30 balls The balls are either red black or white Ten of the balls are red and the remaining 20 are either black or white with all combinations of black and white being equally likely In option X drawing a red ball wins a person 100 and in option Y drawing a black ball wins them 100 The probability of picking a winning ball is the same for both options X and Y In option X the probability of selecting a winning ball is 1 in 3 10 red balls out of 30 total balls In option Y despite the fact that the number of black balls is uncertain the probability of selecting a winning ball is also 1 in 3 This is because the number of black balls is equally distributed among all possibilities between 0 and 20 The difference between the two options is that in option X the probability of a favorable outcome is known but in option Y the probability of a favorable outcome is unknown ambiguous In spite of the equal probability of a favorable outcome people have a greater tendency to select a ball under option X where the probability of selecting a winning ball is perceived to be more certain The uncertainty as to the number of black balls means that option Y tends to be viewed less favorably Despite the fact that there could possibly be twice as many black balls as red balls people tend not to want to take the opposing risk that there may be fewer than 10 black balls The ambiguity behind option Y means that people tend to favor option X even when the probability is the same Explanation editOne possible explanation of the effect is that people have a rule of thumb heuristic to avoid options where information is missing 3 4 This will often lead them to seek out the missing information In many cases though the information cannot be obtained The effect is often the result of calling some particular missing piece of information to the person s attention See also editAmbiguity aversion Black swan theory Choice under uncertainty Ellsberg paradox Prospect theory Risk aversionReferences edit Croskerry Pat Cosby Karen S 2009 Patient Safety in Emergency Medicine Lippincott Williams amp Wilkins p 220 ISBN 978 0 7817 7727 8 Borcherding Katrin Laricev Oleg Ivanovic Messick David M 1990 Contemporary Issues in Decision Making North Holland p 50 ISBN 978 0 444 88618 7 Frisch Deborah Baron Jonathan 1988 Ambiguity and rationality Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 1 3 149 157 doi 10 1002 bdm 3960010303 Ritov Ilana Baron Jonathan 1990 Reluctance to vaccinate Omission bias and ambiguity Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 3 4 263 277 doi 10 1002 bdm 3960030404 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Ambiguity effect amp oldid 1195832523, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.