ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2025
Risk behind the veil of ambiguity: Decision-making under social and nonsocial sources of uncertainty.
Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 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.
- Nocturnal Risk Assessment and Its Association With Anxiety Symptoms.Psychophysiology · 2026Trial
- Risk behind the veil of ambiguity: Decision-making under social and nonsocial sources of uncertainty.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research has long documented how decision-making in risky environments differs between environments where the probabilities of uncertain outcomes are known and where the probabilities are unknown, the latter often referred to as "ambiguous" environments. Yet, there is a dearth of research examining how decisions may be affected by the source responsible for the distribution of uncertain outcomes. The source responsible for generating distributions of uncertain outcomes may be generated by another person (i.e., is social in nature) or by a nonsocial probabilistic mechanism. While a few studies examine how the source responsible for uncertain outcomes affects decisions when probabilities are known, the present study extends prior research to the realm of ambiguity by testing how the source of uncertainty affects both decisions when probabilities are fully known and when probabilities are partially unknown using a within-subjects experimental design. We calculate a general measurement of Social Risk Sensitivity to capture how individuals differ in their sensitivity across three uncertainty environments: risk with no ambiguity, risk with low ambiguity, and risk with high ambiguity. We find evidence showing strong correlations between Social Risk Sensitivity across all three levels of ambiguity. Our results corroborate the previous literature regarding ambiguity effects on decision-making behavior and extend prior work for the first time in this area by demonstrating that individual decisions are shaped by their individual sensitivity to the source from which uncertainty is derived.
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.