Scholarlink

<p>Little is known about how ambiguity attitudes change when consequences are flipped from gains to losses, particularly in the context of natural sources. Focusing on two such sources of uncertainty - the voter participation rates in the 2019 European elections in France and the UK - we report econometric estimations that jointly capture parametric specifications of attitudes and beliefs in the gain and loss domains. For checking purposes, we also compute indexes of ambiguity attitudes proposed by Baillon et al. (<CitationRef CitationID="CR8">2018</CitationRef>). According to our data, attitudes in the loss domain can be inferred from those in the gain domain. Our findings show no significant differences in attitudes between the two natural sources. Furthermore, we observe no differences in beliefs for both sources, regardless of the outcome sign. Our method, which focuses on matching probabilities, offers an efficient approach for investigating ambiguity attitudes and beliefs for natural sources of uncertainty across gains and losses, particularly beneficial in field studies where data collection capabilities may be limited.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Attitudes towards natural sources of uncertainty for gains and losses

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年1月17日

查看全文
  • Mohamed El Guide,
  • Yassine Kaouane,
  • Sonia Mun,
  • Hayat Zouiten

摘要

Little is known about how ambiguity attitudes change when consequences are flipped from gains to losses, particularly in the context of natural sources. Focusing on two such sources of uncertainty - the voter participation rates in the 2019 European elections in France and the UK - we report econometric estimations that jointly capture parametric specifications of attitudes and beliefs in the gain and loss domains. For checking purposes, we also compute indexes of ambiguity attitudes proposed by Baillon et al. (2018). According to our data, attitudes in the loss domain can be inferred from those in the gain domain. Our findings show no significant differences in attitudes between the two natural sources. Furthermore, we observe no differences in beliefs for both sources, regardless of the outcome sign. Our method, which focuses on matching probabilities, offers an efficient approach for investigating ambiguity attitudes and beliefs for natural sources of uncertainty across gains and losses, particularly beneficial in field studies where data collection capabilities may be limited.