ABSTRACT Based on the construal level theory, this paper investigates the influence of different dimensions of psychological distance on the ambiguity decision making. Based on the four dimensions of psychological distance, this paper uses single factor within-subjects experiment design and randomly assigns subjects into each dimension to participate in the experimental manipulation so as to test whether different psychological distance dimensions have an influence on the ambiguity decision making. The results show that, under the conditions of time distance, space distance, social distance and probability, the closer the psychological distance is to decision making, the lower the construal level for the decision event or the object, thereby more inclined to ambiguity avoidance. Thus, the closer the psychological distance of decision event is, the higher degree of the individual’s ambiguity avoidance.
Cite this paper
Tan, Z. and Liu, Y. (2018) The Influence of Psychological Distance on Ambiguity Decision Making: A Perspective Based on the Construal Level Theory. Psychology, 9, 997-1004. doi: 10.4236/psych.2018.95063.
 Camerer, Colin, F., Weber, & Martin (1991). Recent Developments in Modelling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity. Journal of Risk & Uncertainty, 5, 325-370.
 Cen, Y. (2016). The Effect of Optimistic Bias: A Construal Level Perspective. Journal of Psychological Science.
 Chen, H. X., & Hu, G. B. (2014). The Influence of Psychological Distance on Intertemporal Choice and Risk Selection. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46, 677-690. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.00677
 Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643-669. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884324
 Fox, C. R., & Weber, M. (2002). Ambiguity Aversion, Comparative Ignorance, and Decision Context. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 88, 476-498. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2990
 Gong, H., Iliev, R., & Sachdeva, S. (2012). Consequences Are Far Away: Psychological Distance Affects Modes of Moral Decision Making. Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.005
 Heath, C., & Tversky, A. (1991). Preference and Belief: Ambiguity and Competence in Choice under Uncertainty. Journal of Risk & Uncertainty, 4, 5-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00057884
 Kim, K., Zhang, M., & Li, X. (2008). Effects of Temporal and Social Distance on Consumer Evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 706-713. https://doi.org/10.1086/592131
 Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The Role of Feasibility and Desirability Considerations in Near and Distant Future Decisions: A Test of Temporal Construal Theory. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 75, 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.124
 Liu, Y., & Onculer, A. (2017). Ambiguity Attitudes over Time. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30, 80-88. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1922
 Osmont A., Cassotti M., Agogué M., Houdé O., & Moutier S. ,et al. (2015) Does ambiguity Aversion Influence the Framing Effect during Decision Making? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 22, 572-577.
 Pulford, B. D. (2009). Is Luck on My Side? Optimism, Pessimism, and Ambiguity Aversion. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1079-1087. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210802592113
 Rubaltelli, E., Rumiati, R., & Slovic, P. (2010). Do Ambiguity Avoidance and the Comparative Ignorance Hypothesis Depend on People’s Affective Reactions? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 40, 243-254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-010-9091-z
 Todorov, A., Goren, A., & Trope, Y. (2007). Probability as a Psychological Distance: Construal and Preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 473-482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.04.002
 Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440-463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963