ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2025
Ambiguity preferences in intertemporal and risky choice: A large-scale study using drift-diffusion modelling.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 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.
- Motivation to exert effort dynamically adapts to reward context and environmental controllability.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Article
- Present-Biased Preferences Associated with Socioeconomic Status in Intertemporal Decision-Making: Evidence from Behavioral and Electroencephalographic Measures.Brain sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intertemporal choices constitute a significant topic of interest in both psychological and behavioral-economics research. While many studies focus on decisions with precisely known reward delivery times, real-world situations typically involve only an imprecise knowledge of these timings (i.e., the delivery times are ambiguous). The current study uses a large size dataset (sample size N > 669) consisting of both risky and intertemporal ambiguous and nonambiguous choices and aims (i) to clarify the relationship between probability-ambiguity and time-ambiguity effects on choice, and (ii) to evaluate different computational models (attribute-wise and integrated-value models) across risky and intertemporal choice domains using a drift-diffusion model (DDM) framework. Analysis of the choice data revealed a significant association: Individuals who were more averse to time ambiguity also exhibited a stronger aversion to probability ambiguity, as indicated by a correlation of r = .28. The DDM analyses revealed that (i) DDMs incorporating ambiguity preferences outperformed models without ambiguity preferences in both the time and probability domain for most participants. Interestingly, (ii) while time-ambiguity aversion was best explained by an attribute-wise model, probability-ambiguity aversion was best explained by an integrated-value model. Finally, we found that (iii) if an individual's intertemporal decisions were best explained by a DDM incorporating ambiguity, then their risky decisions were also most likely best explained by a DDM incorporating ambiguity.Taken together, our results are evidence that ambiguity preferences across the time and probability domains are not independent but show some consistency despite the differing-attribute-wise versus integrated-value-decision strategies in each domain.
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.