In five experiments, we examine the role of ambiguity aversion in the preference for dominated, established brands.We first show a correlation between ambiguity aversion (revealed through choices among monetary lotteries) and the preference for established brands.Third error might bring "now the thighs, 10 strokes...." and so on through back, breasts, perhaps belly. I totally agree with any producer/distributor that decides to go "digital only".Item Price: .00 At present Amazon gift card is the only method of payment we are accepting.If you need an example, check out the Men's Magazines that Covers has been running every day for part of 2 years, and I don't think he's anywhere close to being done yet. OK, maybe there won't be a Milgram 4, but if there is perhaps they'd alter the procedure a bit.Why not vary the part of the body that receives pain? I believe JD is mistaken in his assertions relating to the "mindset of Western Europe in the Middle Ages" in regard to nudity.
We thank Françoise Forges, Byung Soo Lee, Frank Riedel, Christoph Kuzmics, and two anonymous referees for very helpful discussions and suggestions.
We then show that the preference for established brands is enhanced when ambiguity aversion is made more salient in unrelated preceding lottery choices. In addition, ambiguity aversion and the preference for established brands are both enhanced when subjects anticipate that others will evaluate their lottery choices.
Finally, ambiguous information about brand attributes tends to increase the preference for established brands. TY - JOURT1 - Ambiguity aversion and the preference for established brands AU - Muthukrishnan, A. AU - Luc, Wathieu AU - Xu, Alison Jing PY - 2009/12Y1 - 2009/12N2 - We propose that ambiguity aversion, as introduced in the literature on decision making under uncertainty, drives a preference for established brands in multiattribute choices among branded alternatives.
There are two categories of imperfectly predictable events between which choices must be made: risky and ambiguous events.
Risky events have a known probability distribution over outcomes while in ambiguous events the probability distribution is not known.
Our findings suggest an important difference in updating behavior between risky and ambiguous environments.