Ambiguity aversion is not universal [Dataset]
<|begin_of_text|><|start_header_id|>system<|end_header_id|> You are a research archivist expert in dataset metadata. Answer the question truthfully.  <|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>user<|end_header_id|> Here is the Description of a dataset. Description:'Assuming universal ambiguity aversion, an extensive theoretical literature studies how ambiguity can account for market anomalies from the perspective of expected utility-based theories. We provide a systematic experimental assessment of ambiguity attitudes in different likelihood ranges, and in the gain domain, the loss domain and with mixed outcomes. We draw on a unified framework to elicit preferences across these domains. We replicate the usual finding of ambiguity aversion for moderate likelihood gains. However, when introducing losses or lower likelihoods, we observe predominantly ambiguity neutrality or seeking, rejecting universal ambiguity aversion' . Please return only a json list of at most 3 Keywords corresponding to the Description:.<|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>assistant<|end_header_id|> {"Answer" : ["Ambiguity aversion","Decision under uncertainty","Ellsberg experiments"]} <|eot_id|>
 Here is the Description of a dataset. Description:'Assuming universal ambiguity aversion, an extensive theoretical literature studies how ambiguity can account for market anomalies from the perspective of expected utility-based theories. We provide a systematic experimental assessment of ambiguity attitudes in different likelihood ranges, and in the gain domain, the loss domain and with mixed outcomes. We draw on a unified framework to elicit preferences across these domains. We replicate the usual finding of ambiguity aversion for moderate likelihood gains. However, when introducing losses or lower likelihoods, we observe predominantly ambiguity neutrality or seeking, rejecting universal ambiguity aversion' . Please return only a json list of at most 3 Keywords corresponding to the Description:.
Assuming universal ambiguity aversion, an extensive theoretical literature studies how ambiguity can account for market anomalies from the perspective of expected utility-based theories. We provide a systematic experimental assessment of ambiguity attitudes in different likelihood ranges, and in the gain domain, the loss domain and with mixed outcomes. We draw on a unified framework to elicit preferences across these domains. We replicate the usual finding of ambiguity aversion for moderate likelihood gains. However, when introducing losses or lower likelihoods, we observe predominantly ambiguity neutrality or seeking, rejecting universal ambiguity aversion
Ambiguity aversion; Decision under uncertainty; Ellsberg experiments