This research aimed to clarify whether middle adolescents’ risk-taking is driven by reduced ambiguity aversion. In Study 1, we explored the development of ambiguity aversion using an adaptation of the classic Ellsberg paradox with early adolescents (10–11 years old), middle adolescents (14–16 years old), and young adults (20–25 years old). Study 2 examined the development of ambiguity aversion depending on the ambiguity level in middle adolescence compared with adults. These two studies revealed that only early adolescents did not demonstrate ambiguity aversion. In contrast, middle adolescents and adults showed strong ambiguity aversion irrespective of ambiguity level. These findings support the idea that the period of young adolescence could be the start of ambiguity aversion development, although this tendency to avoid ambiguous options is already developed in middle adolescence. This finding might have important public health implications and suggests that prevention campaigns should consider early adolescence to be a particularly vulnerable age group for risky behaviors.
BlankensteinN. E.CroneE. A.van den BosW.van DuijvenvoordeA. C. (2016). Dealing with uncertainty: Testing risk- and ambiguity-attitude across adolescence. Developmental Neuropsychology, 41(1–2), 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565641.2016.1158265
2.
BlankensteinN. E.HuettelS. A.LiR. (2021). Resolving ambiguity: Broadening the consideration of risky decision making over adolescent development. Developmental Review, 62, Article 100987.
3.
BlankensteinN. E.van DuijvenvoordeA. C. K. (2019). Neural tracking of subjective value under risk and ambiguity in adolescence. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 19(6), 1364–1378. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-019-00749-5
4.
BraamsB. R.DavidowJ. Y.Somerville LeahH. (2019). Developmental patterns of change in the influence of safe and risky peer choices on risky decision making. Developmental Science, 22(1), Article e12717. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.2019.22.issue-110.1111/desc.12717
5.
BraamsB. R.van DuijvenvoordeA. C.PeperJ. S.CroneE. A. (2015). Longitudinal changes in adolescent risk-taking: A comprehensive study of neural responses to rewards, pubertal development, and risk-taking behavior. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 35(18), 7226–7238. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4764-14.2015
6.
CamererC.WeberM. (1992). Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 325–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122575
7.
CassottiM.HabibM.PoirelN.AïteA.HoudéO.MoutierS. (2012). Positive emotional context eliminates the framing effect in decision-making. Emotion, 12(5), 926–931. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026788
8.
De MartinoB.KumaranD.SeymourB.DolanR. J. (2006). Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science, 313(5787), 684–687. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128356
De NeysW. (2012). Bias and conflict: A case for logical intuitions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(1), 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611429354
11.
De NeysW.VanderputteK. (2011). When less is not always more: Stereotype knowledge and reasoning development. Developmental Psychology, 47(2), 432–441. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021313
12.
EllsbergD. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75(4), 643–669. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884324
13.
EvansJ. S. B. T. (2011). Dual-process theories of reasoning: Contemporary issues and developmental applications. Developmental Review, 31(2–3), 86–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2011.07.007
14.
FairleyK.SanfeyA. G. (2020). The role of demographics on adolescents’ preferences for risk, ambiguity, and prudence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 179, 784–796.
15.
FoxC. R.TverskyA. (1995). Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(3), 585–603. https://doi.org/10.2307/2946693
HoJ. L.KellerL. R.KeltykaP. (2002). Effects of outcome and probabilistic ambiguity on managerial choices. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 24(1), 47–74.
18.
HsuM.BhattM.AdolphsR.TranelD.CamererC. F. (2005). Neural systems responding to degrees of uncertainty in human decision-making. Science, 310(5754), 1680–1683. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1115327
19.
HuettelS. A.StoweC. J.GordonE. M.WarnerB. T.PlattM. L. (2006). Neural signatures of economic preferences for risk and ambiguity. Neuron, 49(5), 765–775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2006.01.024
20.
InukaiK.TakahashiT. (2009). Decision under ambiguity: Effects of sign and magnitude. International Journal of Neuroscience, 119(8), 1170–1178. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207450802174472
21.
KahnemanD. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. The American Psychologist, 58(9), 697–720. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697
22.
KahnemanD.FrederickS. (2007). Frames and brains: Elicitation and control of response tendencies. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 45–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.007
LevyI.SnellJ.NelsonA. J.RustichiniA.GlimcherP. W. (2010). Neural representation of subjective value under risk and ambiguity. Journal of Neurophysiology, 103(2), 1036–1047. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00853.2009
25.
LiR.BrannonE. M.HuettelS. A. (2015). Children do not exhibit ambiguity aversion despite intact familiarity bias. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 1519. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01519
26.
LiR.RobertsR. C.HuettelS. A.BrannonE. M. (2017). Five-year-olds do not show ambiguity aversion in a risk and ambiguity task with physical objects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 159, 319–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.02.013
OsmontA.CamardaA.HabibM.CassottiM. (2021). Peers’ choices influence adolescent risk-taking especially when explicit risk information is lacking. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31(2), 402–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12611
29.
OsmontA.CassottiM.AgoguéM.HoudéO.MoutierS. (2015). Does ambiguity aversion influence the framing effect during decision making?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(2), 572–577. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0688-0
30.
OsmontA.MoutierS.SimonG.BouhoursL.HoudéO.CassottiM. (2017). How does explicit versus implicit risk information influence adolescent risk-taking engagement?. Journal of Behavioral Decision-Making, 30(5), 1093–1103. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2026
31.
PulfordB. D. (2009). Is luck on my side? Optimism, pessimism, and ambiguity aversion. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(6), 1079–1087. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210802592113
32.
PulfordB. D.ColmanA. M. (2007a). Ambiguous games: Evidence for strategic ambiguity aversion. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(8), 1083–1100. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210600866354
ReynaV. F. (2012). A new intuitionism: Meaning, memory, and development in Fuzzy-Trace Theory. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(3), 332–359.
35.
ReynaV. F.BrainerdC. J. (2011). Dual processes in decision making and developmental neuroscience: A fuzzy-trace model. Developmental Review, 31(2–3), 180–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2011.07.004
36.
ReynaV. F.FarleyF. (2006). Risk and rationality in adolescent decision making implications for theory, practice, and public policy. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(1), 1–44.
37.
RubaltelliE.RumiatiR.SlovicS. (2010). Do ambiguity avoidance and the comparative ignorance hypothesis depend on people’s affective reactions?. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 40(3), 243–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-010-9091-z
38.
SavageL. J. (1954). Foundations of statistics. Wiley.
39.
SmithK.DickhautJ.McCabeK.PardoJ. V. (2002). Neuronal substrates for choice under ambiguity, risk, gains, and losses. Management Science, 48(6), 711–718. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.6.711.194
40.
SomervilleL. H.JonesR. M.CaseyB. J. (2010). A time of change: Behavioral and neural correlates of adolescent sensitivity to appetitive and aversive environmental cues. Brain and Cognition, 72(1), 124–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2009.07.003
41.
SutterM.KocherM. G.RützlerD.TrautmannS. T. (2013). Impatience and uncertainty: Experimental decisions predict adolescents’ field behavior. American Economic Review, 103(1), 510–531.
42.
TrautmannS. T.van de KuilenG. (2015). Ambiguity attitudes. In KerenG.WuG. (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 89–116). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118468333.ch3
43.
TrautmannS. T.VieiderF. M.WakkerP. P. (2008). Causes of ambiguity aversion: Known versus unknown preferences. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 36(3), 225–243. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-008-9038-9
44.
TymulaA.Rosenberg BelmakerL. A.RoyA. K.RudermanL.MansonK.GlimcherP. W.LevyI. (2012). Adolescents’ risk-taking behavior is driven by tolerance to ambiguity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42), 17135–17140. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1207144109
45.
van den BosW.HertwigR. (2017). Adolescents display distinctive tolerance to ambiguity and to uncertainty during risky decision making. Scientific Reports, 7, Article 40962. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40962
46.
Van LeijenhorstL.MoorB. G.Op de MacksZ. A.RomboutsS. A. R. B.WestenbergP. M.CroneE. A. (2010). Adolescent risky decision-making: Neurocognitive development of reward and control regions. NeuroImage, 51(1), 345–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.02.038
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
