IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ambiguity aversion in the long run: Repeated decisions under risk and uncertainty


  • Liu, Hsin-Hsien
  • Colman, Andrew M.


In two experiments, decision makers chose between risky and ambiguous gambles under conditions of both single (unrepeated) and multiply repeated choices. The gambles were presented either as modified Ellsberg urn choices or as marketing strategy decisions. In both experiments, decision makers chose the ambiguous options more frequently in the repeated-choice than the single-choice conditions. More decision makers made risky single choices and ambiguous repeated choices than ambiguous single choices and risky repeated choices. Decision makers expressed more self-rated confidence in their repeated than their single ambiguous choices. These findings are interpreted in the light of findings on repeated decision making under risk and theories of loss aversion and ambiguity aversion.

Suggested Citation

  • Liu, Hsin-Hsien & Colman, Andrew M., 2009. "Ambiguity aversion in the long run: Repeated decisions under risk and uncertainty," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 277-284, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:30:y:2009:i:3:p:277-284

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Richard H. Thaler & Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman & Alan Schwartz, 1997. "The Effect of Myopia and Loss Aversion on Risk Taking: An Experimental Test," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 112(2), pages 647-661.
    2. Pulford, Briony D. & Colman, Andrew M., 2007. "Ambiguous games: Evidence for strategic ambiguity aversion," MPRA Paper 86345, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 1995. "Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 110(1), pages 73-92.
    4. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    5. Einhorn, Hillel J & Hogarth, Robin M, 1986. "Decision Making under Ambiguity," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 225-250, October.
    6. Lopes, Lola L., 1996. "When Time Is of the Essence: Averaging, Aspiration, and the Short Run," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 179-189, March.
    7. Daniel Ellsberg, 2000. "Risk, Ambiguity and the Savage Axioms," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7605, David K. Levine.
    8. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    9. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 1999. "Risk Aversion or Myopia? Choices in Repeated Gambles and Retirement Investments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(3), pages 364-381, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Michael L. DeKay & Dan R. Schley & Seth A. Miller & Breann M. Erford & Jonghun Sun & Michael N. Karim & Mandy B. Lanyon, 2016. "The persistence of common-ratio effects in multiple-play decisions," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(4), pages 361-379, July.
    2. Johanna Etner & Meglena Jeleva & Jean‐Marc Tallon, 2012. "Decision Theory Under Ambiguity," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 234-270, April.
    3. Ken Binmore & Lisa Stewart & Alex Voorhoeve, 2012. "How much ambiguity aversion?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 215-238, December.
    4. W. Kip Viscusi & Scott DeAngelis, 2018. "Decision irrationalities involving deadly risks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 225-252, December.
    5. Füllbrunn, Sascha & Rau, Holger A. & Weitzel, Utz, 2014. "Does ambiguity aversion survive in experimental asset markets?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PB), pages 810-826.
    6. Jean Desrochers & J. Francois Outreville, 2013. "Uncertainty, Ambiguity and Risk Taking: an experimental investigation of consumer behavior and demand for insurance," ICER Working Papers 10-2013, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    7. Trautmann, Stefan T. & Zeckhauser, Richard J., 2013. "Shunning uncertainty: The neglect of learning opportunities," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 44-55.
    8. Ruonan Jia & Ellen Furlong & Sean Gao & Laurie R Santos & Ifat Levy, 2020. "Learning about the Ellsberg Paradox reduces, but does not abolish, ambiguity aversion," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-24, March.
    9. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2018. "A Lot of Ambiguity," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 954, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 31 Mar 2020.
    10. Şule Güney & Ben R. Newell, 2019. "An exploratory investigation of the impact of evaluation context on ambiguity aversion," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(3), pages 335-348, May.
    11. Arvid Hoffmann & Sam Henry & Nikos Kalogeras, 2013. "Aspirations as reference points: an experimental investigation of risk behavior over time," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(2), pages 193-210, August.
    12. Robles-Zurita, José, 2018. "Alternation bias and sums of identically distributed monetary lotteries," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 78-85.


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:30:y:2009:i:3:p:277-284. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Haili He). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.