Testing Credit and Blame Attributions as Explanation for Choices under Ambiguity

Abstract

People make decisions every day based on their estimates of the chances of various events occurring. By their very nature, these subjective estimates are less certain, and thus more ambiguous, than objective probabilities such as those associated with roulette wheels or lotteries. In two experimental studies, we investigate choices between bets on the decision maker′s knowledge versus bets on a lottery with the same chance of winning. In Study 1, we partially replicate the Heath and Tversky (1991) finding that subjects have an increasing preference for betting on their own knowledge over the matched-chance lottery as probability increases. We also discover a significant minority of subjects who exhibit the opposite pattern and prefer the lottery as probability increases. In addition, we explicitly test the subjects′ attributions about the credit they would feel for a win and the blame they would feel for a loss, and these attributions do provide some explanation for their choice behavior. In Study 2, we manipulate knowledge and accountability, in an attempt to heighten the attributions of credit and blame, and we replicate the findings.