PSYCH  Vol.9 No.5 , May 2018
The Influence of Psychological Distance on Ambiguity Decision Making: A Perspective Based on the Construal Level Theory
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.
References
[1]   Camerer, Colin, F., Weber, & Martin (1991). Recent Developments in Modelling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity. Journal of Risk & Uncertainty, 5, 325-370.

[2]   Cen, Y. (2016). The Effect of Optimistic Bias: A Construal Level Perspective. Journal of Psychological Science.

[3]   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

[4]   Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643-669. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884324

[5]   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

[6]   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

[7]   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

[8]   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

[9]   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/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.5

[10]   Liu, Y., & Onculer, A. (2017). Ambiguity Attitudes over Time. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30, 80-88. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1922

[11]   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.

[12]   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

[13]   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

[14]   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

[15]   Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440-463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963

 
 
Top