本研究採用兩種遊戲觀察測試者的風險態度和模糊態度，GAME 1：每一大題都利用多重單選題及填充題測試受試者，GAME 2：用競標方式測試受試者。
當決策涉及到獲利下的風險問題和損失下的風險問題，決策者持有不同的態度；相同地，決策者在獲利下的模糊問題和損失下的模糊問題也有不一樣的態度。但值得注意的是，兩個遊戲呈現的結果沒有很明顯的相關。
GAME 1之多重單選題的風險遊戲部分和模糊遊戲部分，決策者遇到獲利的情況時表現出趨避的心態、遇到損失的情況時表現出喜好的心態；GAME 1之填充題的風險遊戲部分和模糊遊戲部分，決策者看到獲利的情況時表現出中立的心態、看到損失的情況時表現出喜好的心態。
本實驗的GAME 2使用直接分析資料和利用風險指標與模糊指標分析資料。直接使用受試者填寫的標金分析GAME 2，主要呈現出三個結論：(1)獲利狀況下，受試者面臨高機率的獲利條件時呈現出風險趨避、模糊趨避，面臨低機率的條件時呈現出風險喜好、模糊喜好；損失狀況下，受試者面臨高機率時的損失條件時表現出風險喜好、模糊喜好，面臨低機率的條件時表現出風險趨避、模糊趨避。(2)獲利時風險和模糊的相關係數顯著大於損失時風險和模糊的相關係數。(3)在獲利遊戲中，受試者在模糊程度大的遊戲中所呈現的趨避態度顯著大於模糊程度小的遊戲；在損失遊戲中，受試者在模糊程度大的遊戲中所呈現的趨避態度無顯著大於模糊程度小的遊戲。
再引進風險指標和模糊指標分析GAME 2，上述前兩個結論是相同的，但是發現第三個結論和上述是不同的：獲利遊戲中，受試者在模糊程度大的遊戲所呈現的趨避程度顯著大於模糊程度小的遊戲；而在損失遊戲中，受試者在模糊程度越小的遊戲所呈現的趨避程度顯著越大於模糊成大的遊戲。

Two different types of games are used to measure subjects’ attitudes towards risk and ambiguity in this paper. In GAME 1, subjects are provided with a series of binary choices and a fill-in question for every set of tasks. In GAME 2, subjects are asked to play an auction game. Gains and losses stimulate subjects’ different attitudes toward risk. It also happens when we measure subjects’ attitude toward ambiguity. However, the results of Game 1 and Game 2 lack strong correlation with each other.
While answering the series of binary choices in Game 1, subjects are risk averse/ambiguity averse over gains, and risk seeking/ambiguity seeking over losses. While answering the fill-in question in Game 1, subjects are risk neutral/ambiguity neutral over gains, and risk seeking/ambiguity seeking over losses.
In GAME 2, we measure the attitude toward risk or attitude by the deviation from the case of neutrality or by risk indexes/ambiguity indexes. Analyzing the deviation, we conclude: (1) In the gains domain with high average probabilities to win, subjects are risk averse/ambiguity averse, but in the case of low average probabilities to win, subjects are risk seeking/ambiguity seeking. On the other hand, in the losses domain with high average probabilities to loss, subjects are risk seeking/ambiguity seeking, but when with low average probabilities to loss, subjects are risk aversion/ambiguity aversion. (2) The correlation between the attitudes toward risk and ambiguity gains is significantly greater than that over losses. (3) In the gains domain, the level of ambiguity aversion of subjects significantly increases with the ambiguous ranges of games. However, in the losses domain, the relation between those two is weak or non-significant.
Analyzing the data with the risk indexes and the ambiguity indexes, we have two conclusions identical to the above. However, in the gains domain, the level of ambiguity aversion of subjects significantly increases with the ambiguity range of the games while we have the opposite result in the losses domain.

1 緒論 1
1.1 研究動機與目的 1
1.2 研究架構 3
2 文獻回顧 5
3 研究方法 10
3.1 問卷架構與流程 10
3.2 風險實驗 12
3.3 模糊實驗 13
3.4 參與者 15
4 實驗結果 17
4.1 GAME 1的檢定分析 17
4.2 GAME 2的檢定分析 18
4.3 GAME 2之風險指標和模糊指標 25
4.4 GAME 2的回歸分析 27
4.5 GAME 1和GAME 2的關係 30
5 結論與建議 40
5.1 研究結論 40
5.2 未來研究建議 41
參考文獻 43
附錄：正式問卷 45

Camerer, C.F. (2003), “Strategizing in the Brain,” Science, 300(5626), 1673-1675.
Camerer, C.F. (2005), “Neuroeconomics,” Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 58(4), 12-15.
Chakravarty, S. and J. Roy (2009), “Recursive Expected Utility and the Separation of Attitudes towards Risk and Ambiguity: An Experimental Study,” Theory and Decision, 66, 199-228.
Curley, S.P. and J.F. Yates (1985), “The Center and Range of the Probability Interval as Factors Affecting Ambiguity Preference,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36(2), 273-287.
Ellsberg, D. (1961), “Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643-669.
Halevy, Y. (2007), “Ellsberg Revisited: An Experimental Study,” Econometrica, 75(2), 503-536.
Hogarth, R.M. and H.J. Einhorn (1990), “Venture Theory: A Model of Decision Weights,” Management Science, 36(7), 780-803.
Huettel, S., C.J. Stowe, E.M. Gordon, B.T. Warner, and M.L. Platt (2006), “Neural Signature of Economic Preferences for Risk and Ambiguity,” Neuron, 49,
765-775.
Kahin, B. and R. Sarin (1988), “Modeling Ambiguity in Decisions under Uncertainty,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 265-272.
Lauriola, M. and I.P. Levin (2001), “Relating Individual Differences in Attitude toward Ambiguity to Risky Choices,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14(2), 107-122.
Levy, I., J. Snell, A.J. Nelson, A. Rustichini, and P.W. Glimcher (2010), “Neural Representation of Subjective Value under Risk and Ambiguity,” Journal of Neurophysiology, 103(2), 1036-1047.
Savage, L.J. (1954), “The Foundations of Statistics,” Wiley, New York.
Trautmann, S.T., F.M. Vieider, and P.P. Wakker (2011), “Preference Reversal for Ambiguity Aversion,” Management Science, 57(7), 1320-1333.
Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman (1992), “Advances in Prospect Theory:Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297-323.