Table 1.
Demographic description of the sample.
Fig 1.
Task Design: Participants were presented with choices between an uncertain option and a certain outcome across four scenarios: risky monetary decisions (A), ambiguous monetary decisions (B), Risky medical decisions (C), and ambiguous medical decisions (D). In the risky scenarios (A, C), the outcome probabilities were visually represented by red and blue rectangles, and these probabilities were fully disclosed to the participants. In the ambiguous scenarios (B, D), the probability information was partially obscured by a grey rectangle, indicating uncertainty. The outcome probabilities in risky trials were set at 25%, 50%, and 75%, while the levels of ambiguity (indicated by the grey area) were set at 74%, 50%, and 24%. There were four possible outcomes for monetary decisions ($5, $8, $12, and $25) and four potential medical outcomes (E). Each unique pairing of uncertainty and outcome levels was presented to the participants four times.
Table 2.
Model comparison.
Fig 2.
Estimated value in each category.
The estimated values from the Estimated Value model for each category. Panes A and B show the estimated values for the medical decision-making task (Pane A) and the monetary decision-making task (Pane B) for the in-person sample. Panes C and D show the estimated values in the medical decision-making task (Pane C) and the monetary decision-making task (Pane D) for the online sample. Each colored dot represents an individual participant, while the large black dot indicates the mean estimated value for each category. See S4 Figure for an illustration of the curvature in the monetary domain.
Fig 3.
Cross-domain association in ambiguity aversion (β).
The positive association between ambiguity aversion (β) in the monetary (x-axis) and medical (y-axis) domains in the in-person (Pane A) and online (Pane B) samples. The mean slope of the robust regression and the 89% highest density posterior interval (HDPi) are indicated in the panels.