Abstract

Investigating the bases of inter-individual differences in risk-taking is necessary to refine our cognitive and neural models of decision-making and to ultimately counter risky behaviors in real-life policy settings. However, recent evidence suggests that behavioral tasks fare poorly compared to standard questionnaires to measure individual differences in risk-taking. Crucially, using model-based measures of risk taking does not seem to improve reliability. Here, we put forward two possible – not mutually exclusive – explanations for these results and suggest future avenues of research to improve the assessment of inter-individual differences in risk-taking by combining repeated online testing and mechanistic computational models.

Highlights

  • In a recent series of studies Frey et al (2017) investigated the relationship between different measures of risk-sensitivity in a laboratory-based experiment involving over a thousand participants (N∼1500) (Frey et al, 2017; Pedroni et al, 2017)

  • We consider a simplified case involving two possible phenotypes, a risk-seeking phenotype and a risk-averse phenotype, and we propose a multi-layer model in which momentary risk attitude corresponds to the weighted sum of different sources of influence that change with different time constants (Figure 1)

  • Recent evidence based on large-scale behavioral testing shows that behavioral measures in cognitive tasks are outperformed by propensity measures from personality questionnaires, in terms of external validity and reliability

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In a recent series of studies Frey et al (2017) investigated the relationship between different measures of risk-sensitivity in a laboratory-based experiment involving over a thousand participants (N∼1500) (Frey et al, 2017; Pedroni et al, 2017). Low external validity and-reliability is extremely worrying for the development of behavioral economics applications and (by extension) for the neuroeconomics research framework, where risk preferences are commonly assessed and elicited using behavioral tasks.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call