After looking at the wiki and seeing what is cited there I'm not quite sure it all means much of anything, they're talking about ambiguity and it's kind of a nonsensical test of red and blue balls and one having a risky outcome versus one choice having an ambiguous or unknown outcome.
Women initially respond to ambiguity much more favorably than men, but as ambiguity increases, men and women show similar marginal valuations of ambiguity. Psychological traits are strongly associated with risk but not to ambiguity. Adjusting for psychological traits explains why a gender difference exists within risk aversion and why these differences are not a part of ambiguity aversion. Since psychological measures are related to risk but not to ambiguity, risk aversion and ambiguity aversion are distinct traits because they depend on different variables
And it may all be context-sensitive, so one measure of ambiguity might not apply everywhere, as detailed further down
One surprising feature of the results was that the links between choices in the single person decision and those in the games was not strong. Subjects appeared to perceive a greater level of ambiguity in a two-person coordination game, than a single person decision problem. More generally the results suggested that perceptions of ambiguity and even attitudes to ambiguity depend on context. Hence it may not be possible to measure ambiguity-attitude in one context and use it to predict behaviour in another.
Not saying you didn't read the wiki, just saying that ambiguity related science is still very nascent and they're pretty... ambiguous about how it all works.
Edited it just a... bit, lol.
After looking at the wiki and seeing what is cited there I'm not quite sure it all means much of anything, they're talking about ambiguity and it's kind of a nonsensical test of red and blue balls and one having a risky outcome versus one choice having an ambiguous or unknown outcome.
And it may all be context-sensitive, so one measure of ambiguity might not apply everywhere, as detailed further down
Not saying you didn't read the wiki, just saying that ambiguity related science is still very nascent and they're pretty... ambiguous about how it all works.