Preference and belief: Ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty¶
Heath, & Tversky. (1991). Preference and belief: Ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty: Ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Ellsberg Paradox
- Insurance and incomplete contracts — ambiguity-averse insurers load beyond actuarial expected loss when the loss distribution is itself uncertain, as in catastrophe or novel-disease coverage. Deep-uncertainty policy — precautionary frameworks for climate, pandemics, and AI risk that treat unestimable-probability regimes differently from estimable ones, invoking Knightian-uncertainty / ambiguity-aversion machinery. Behavioural finance and consumer choice — the field ambiguity premium, whose limit the competence hypothesis marks: choosers are ambiguity-seeking in domains of felt competence (Heath and Tversky), so the premium is not uniform across settings.
This sourceThe Heath and Tversky competence hypothesis — people prefer betting on their own judgment when they consider themselves knowledgeable, and pay a premium to do so — read as marking the limit of the ambiguity premium rather than extending it to the field.
SupportedVerified against the source
- Insurance and incomplete contracts — ambiguity-averse insurers load beyond actuarial expected loss when the loss distribution is itself uncertain, as in catastrophe or novel-disease coverage. Deep-uncertainty policy — precautionary frameworks for climate, pandemics, and AI risk that treat unestimable-probability regimes differently from estimable ones, invoking Knightian-uncertainty / ambiguity-aversion machinery. Behavioural finance and consumer choice — the field ambiguity premium, whose limit the competence hypothesis marks: choosers are ambiguity-seeking in domains of felt competence (Heath and Tversky), so the premium is not uniform across settings.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This work's DOI is recorded above but has not been resolved against an external catalogue, so nothing here confirms the work exists.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:002bb6dcbf7a · see in the full table