Talk:Ambiguity aversion

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Game theory Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Game theory, an attempt to improve, grow, and standardize Wikipedia's articles related to Game theory. We need your help! Join in \| Fix a red link \| Add content \| Weigh inGame theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Game theoryTemplate:WikiProject Game theorygame theory articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Citations[edit]

I cannot find the Collar (2008) citation in the article, in general references are badly formatted. Can anybody help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oragonof (talk • contribs) 17:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article[edit]

Far be it from me to say what this phenomenon is usually called (and I guess Wikipedia has to follow common usage?), but it does not relate to "ambiguity". Ambiguity is where something has multiple possible interpretations. It is incorrect to use it to refer to uncertainty in general, in the context of probability. If there is no consensus as to general usage, I therefore think the article should be moved to "Uncertainty aversion". Any views? 57.66.103.6 (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Ambiguity Aversion" is definitely something that is discussed in the Decision theory literature, although the usual example is Ellsberg paradox, which is different from the example given in the article (which I feel isn't a strict example of ambiguity...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.3.2 (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not quite correct[edit]

This description of the phenomenon: It is demonstrated in the Ellsberg paradox (i.e. that people prefer to bet on an urn with 50 Red and 50 Blue balls, than in one with 100 total balls but where the number of blue or red balls is unknown). is not quite correct. It's not just that people prefer to bet on the first urn than the second urn. If that's all that there was too it there'd be no "paradox" involved, just preferences. Rather, it's that their choices are inconsistent when choosing which urn to bet on across colors which creates the paradox.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]