Freedom of choice and stimulus familiarity modulate the preference for ambiguity

Transcription

1 The Japanese Journal of Psychonomic Science , Vol. 34, No. 2, DOI: 1,2 a * b c c a b c Freedom of choice and stimulus familiarity modulate the preference for ambiguity Mayuko Hori a *, Keitaro Numata b, Sadahiko Nakajima c, and Tsuneo Shimazaki c a Faculty of Humanities and Sciences, Kobe Gakuin University b Graduate School of Human Sciences, Osaka University c School of Humanities, Kwansei Gakuin University People prefer unambiguity to ambiguity in decision making under ambiguity. This phenomenon, known as ambiguity aversion, is thought to be influenced by environmental and psychological factors. The present research demonstrated the effects of choice opportunity the availability of choice of cards, competition the presence vs. absence of a competitor, and stimulus familiarity familiar playing cards vs. unfamiliar tarot cards on choice of ambiguity. Participants preferred the ambiguous deck of cards when they were allowed to choose playing cards. In the tarot-card task, however, they did not show a preference for the ambiguous deck even if they could choose the cards by themselves. The competition factor had no effect on the participants choice. These findings indicate that choice opportunity and stimulus familiarity affect decision making under ambiguity. Keywords: decision making, ambiguity aversion, stimulus familiarity, choice opportunity, illusion of control Ellsberg, 1961, p. 657 Adachi, Yama, Van der Henst, Mercier, Karasawa, & Kawasaki, 2013; Einhorn & Hogarth, 1986; Klein, Cerully, Monin, & Moore, 2010 ambiguity aversion * Corresponding author. Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Sciences, Kobe Gakuin University, 518 Arise, Ikawadani-cho, Nishi-ku, Kobe, Hyogo , Japan. hori@human.kobegakuin.ac.jp Keren & Gerritsen, 1999, Fox & Tversky, 1995, Heath & Tversky, 1991 Fox & Tversky, 1995 Heath & Tversky, a 2002a illusion of control Langer 1975 p. 311 p. 313 choice competition familiarity involvement Copyright The Japanese Psychonomic Society. All rights reserved.

2 247 4 Bouts & Van Avermaet, 1992; Dunn & Wilson, 1990, Langer, a a a 2002a 2002a a a a 2002a a mm 63 mm 112 mm 72 mm b 3

3 Figure Figure Figure 1. Setting of experimental condition. Each of 4 decks consists of 10 cards. Figure 2. Procedure of making of card decks. Numerals indicate the number of cards.

4 249 Figure 3 Figure 4 χ , p.037 χ , p Z 0.15, p.881 χ , p.831, χ , p.404 Z 1.05, p Z 2.00, p.046 Z 1.02, p Langer a Figure 3. Preference ratios of the low vs. high ambiguity as functions of choice opportunity forced vs. free choice competition play single vs. competitive play task familiarity familiar playing cards vs. unfamiliar tarot cards. The black and white bars respectively indicate bets on low and high ambiguity. Numerals in the bars indicate the number of participants.

5 a 2002a Langer a 2002a 2002a 2002a Langer 1975 Figure 4. The number of participants bets in four conditions: Single-group at the playing-card task top left panel, competition-group at the playing-card task top right panel, single-group at the tarot-card task bottom left panel, and competition-group at the tarot-card task bottom right panel. The cell A indicates the number of participants who chose low-ambiguity both in forced and free choice conditions. The cell B indicates the number of participants who chose low-ambiguity in forced choice condition, and high-ambiguity in free choice condition. The cell C indicates the number of participants who chose high-ambiguity in forced choice condition, and low-ambiguity in free choice condition. The cell D indicates the number of participants who chose high-ambiguity both in forced and free choice conditions.

6 251 Bouts & Van Avermaet 1992 focused attention 2002a Bouts & Van Avermaet ; 2002b Langer 1975 stimulus familiarity response familiarity Bouts & Van Avermaet 1992 Langer Langer b, p b Adachi, K., Yama, H., Van der Henst, J.-B., Mercier, H., Karasawa, M., & Kawasaki, Y. (2013). Culture, ambiguity aversion and choice in probability judgments. International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 23, Bouts, P., & Van Avermaet, E. (1992). Drawing familiar or unfamiliar cards: Stimulus familiarity, chance orientation, and the illusion of control. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, Dunn, D. S., & Wilson, T. D. (1990). When the stakes are high: A limit to the illusion-of-control effect. Social Cognition, 8, Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1986). Decision making under ambiguity. Journal of Business, 59, Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, Fox, C. R., & Tversky, A. (1995). Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, Heath, C., & Tversky, A. (1991). Preference and belief: Ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4, , Hori, M., Numata, K., & Nakajima, S. (2014). Is superstitious behavior more easily acquired by negative reinforcement schedules than positive reinforcement schedules? Examinations of the polarity and the duration of a consequence. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 84, Keren, G., & Gerritsen, L. E. M. (1999). On the robustness and possible accounts of ambiguity aversion. Acta Psychologica, 103, Klein, W. M. P., Cerully, J. L., Monin, M. M., & Moore, D. A. (2010). Ability, chance, and ambiguity aversion: Revisiting the competence hypothesis. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, Langer, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32,

7 Masuda, S., & Hirota, S , Masuda, S., Sakagami, T., & Hirota, S. (1997). Decision making by elderly people: Escape from choosing. Japanese Psychological Review, 40, a 73, Masuda, S., Sakagami, T., & Hirota, S. (2002a). The effect of available choices on ambiguity aversion: An examination of different types of ambiguity. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 73, b 45, Masuda, S., Sakagami, T., & Hirota, S. (2002b). Illusion of control: Consideration of the experimental manipulations and the measurement methods. Japanese Psychological Review, 45, , Nishimura, S. (2007). Multi-dimensional structure of attitudes towards ambiguity. Japanese Journal of Personality, 15,