Construct · 3 names · 4 citations
Different names. Different fields. One construct. One map.
● jangle · one attitude, many model names Nearest construct by meaningambiguitycompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to ambiguity aversion is ambiguity.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are the names and the models that coined them; dashed arcs are borrowings. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each name appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
The behavioural pattern at the root of the construct: offered a bet on a draw from an urn with a known fifty-fifty split, and an otherwise identical bet on an urn whose split is unknown, most people prefer the known odds for either colour, a choice that no single assignment of probabilities can rationalise. Ellsberg's 1961 Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms set out this pattern and showed it violates the sure-thing principle of expected-utility theory, marking off a distaste for unknown odds from ordinary caution about known ones. This laboratory paradox is the same preference the later traditions rename and remodel, a reluctance to act when the probabilities themselves are not pinned down.[1]
The formal decision theory built to accommodate the paradox: rather than one probability, the decision-maker holds a set of possible probability distributions and scores each act by its worst-case expected value across that set, so a wider set of beliefs, meaning more ambiguity, lowers the value of an ambiguous bet. Gilboa and Schmeidler's 1989 Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior gave the axioms for this maxmin rule, and Camerer and Weber's 1992 Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity reviewed how such models reproduce the Ellsberg findings. This is the Ellsberg preference again, now written as a rule over a set of priors rather than observed as a puzzle in a bet.[2][3]
The same construct located in the brain: when people choose under ambiguity, meaning missing information about the odds, rather than under known risk, distinct neural circuits respond differently, and the difference tracks how strongly a person avoids ambiguous options. Hsu, Bhatt, Adolphs, Tranel, and Camerer's 2005 Neural Systems Responding to Degrees of Uncertainty in Human Decision-Making reported that the level of information about the odds engaged the amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex, and that patients with damage to that region were less sensitive to the difference between risk and ambiguity. Here the construct is read as a physiological signal, but it is the same aversion Ellsberg found in a bet and Gilboa and Schmeidler wrote as a rule.[4]
Next
See how ambiguity aversion sits against neighbouring constructs in the Collider, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct