Drama theory can explain many psychological facts through use of the Personalization Hypothesis. This states that humans consciously or unconsciously think of entities they interact with in making difficult decisions as other parties in a drama.
This hypothesis underlies the explanation of Kubler-Ross's 5 stages of Dying given elsewhere in this forum. It also enables a dt explanation of the Ellsberg Paradox.
Daniel Ellsberg (Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643-669, 1961) told subjects that an urn contained
--50 red balls
--100 black & yellow balls
but didn't say how many of the 100 were black & how many were yellow. He then asked them to choose between the following pairs of gambles.
Gamble 1: $100 if you draw a red ball. Gamble 2: $100 if you draw a black one.
Gamble 1: $100 if you draw red or yellow. Gamble 2: $100 if you draw black or yellow.
Most subjects strongly prefer Gamble 1 in the first pair and Gamble 2 in the second pair. This can't be explained on the assumption that they have subjective probabilities for their chance of picking black or yellow and are maximizing expected utility.
It's explained by assuming that they subconsciously think of the experimental setup as another party in the following interaction.
Subjects have been told that when they reveal their bet, the odds will not be stacked against them by the experiment varying the proportion of Black and Yellow balls. Thinking of the experiment as another party, they might mistrust this assurance. By choosing Gamble 1 in the first pair and Gamble 2 in the second, they make it impossible for the odds to be stacked in this way. Thus, they eliminate the trust dilemma shown by the question marks in columns S and a.