ArticleData in brief2025
A dataset of risky and ambiguous decisions using a novel Linked Colored Lottery Task across two studies.
Article in Data in brief, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
How individuals make decisions under ambiguity (i.e., uncertain situations where the probability of an outcome is unknown) has been related to numerous individual differences of clinical importance including aging, substance use, and autism spectrum disorders. Despite this, many studies rely on a max-min model of ambiguity decision-making, which assumes that individuals evaluate ambiguous options based solely on worst-case and best-case scenarios. However, this approach does not account for the role of individual beliefs about underlying probabilities, which can significantly shape decision-making behavior. We introduce a novel task, the Linked Colored Lottery Task, in an in-person (N= 53) and online sample (N= 300) which allows for analyses that examine the effect of these beliefs. Along with this novel task, demographic information and data for several personality and clinical questionnaires were collected. By incorporating measures that capture differences in probability beliefs, this dataset enables researchers to examine how ambiguity-related decision-making varies beyond max-min assumptions, providing a richer understanding of how individuals form and act upon beliefs about probabilities. These data offer opportunities to explore how individual tendencies-such as risk preferences, cognitive styles, and clinical traits-interact with beliefs about uncertainty, advancing both theoretical and applied perspectives on decision-making under ambiguity.
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.