ArticleScientific reports2025
Moderate stability of risk and ambiguity attitudes across quantitative and qualitative decisions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modeling information demand in the framework of probabilistic reasoning.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- Divergent attitudes toward ambiguous and conflicting information.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Uncertainty lies at the heart of everyday choices, affecting both decisions about precise quantities and those with less tangible, more qualitative, outcomes. Previous literature on decisions under uncertainty focused on alternatives with quantifiable outcomes, for example monetary lotteries. In such scenarios, decision-makers make decisions based on success chance, outcome magnitude, and individual preferences for uncertainty. It is not clear, however, how individuals construct subjective values when outcomes are not directly quantifiable. To explore how decision-makers choose between non-quantifiable uncertain outcomes, we focus here on medical decisions with qualitative outcomes. Specifically, we ask whether decision-makers exhibit similar attitudes towards uncertainty, focusing on ambiguity, across domains with quantitative and qualitative outcomes. We designed an online decision-making task where participants made binary choices between alternatives offering either guaranteed low outcomes or potentially better outcomes that were associated with some uncertainty. Outcomes were either hypothetical monetary gains of varying magnitudes or levels of improvement in a hypothetical medical condition. We recruited 429 online participants and repeated the survey in two waves, which allowed us to compare the between-domain attitude consistency with within-domain consistency over time. We found that uncertainty attitudes were moderately correlated across domains and time. We discuss the implications and applicability of our paradigm to broader contexts with non-quantifiable outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.