Abstract
Many studies claim to measure decision-making under risk by employing the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale, a self-report measure, or the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART), a behavioural task. However, these tasks do not measure decision-making under risk but decision-making under uncertainty, a related but distinct concept. The present commentary discusses both the theoretical and empirical basis of the distinction between uncertainty and risk from the viewpoint of several scientific disciplines and reports how many studies wrongfully employ the DOSPERT scale and BART as risk-taking measures. Importantly, we call for proper distinguishing between (tasks measuring) decision-making under uncertainty and decision-making under risk in psychology, and related fields. We believe this is vital as research has shown that people’s attitudes, behaviour, and brain activity differ between both concepts, indicating that confusing the concepts may lead researchers to erroneous conclusions.
Highlights
Many studies claim to examine decision-making under risk, using a broad range of measures to indicate an individual’s level of risk-taking
Behavioural economic literature has supported the validity of the U/R distinction by showing that individuals are less sensitive to likelihood information in the case of uncertainty compared to risk: likelihood insensitivity decreases with more information (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979; Kahn and Sarin, 1988; Kilka and Weber, 2001; Abdellaoui et al, 2005, 2011; Baillon et al, 2012, 2013, 2017)
To behavioural economic literature, psychological literature supports the empirical distinction between uncertainty and risk
Summary
Many studies claim to examine decision-making under risk, using a broad range of measures to indicate an individual’s level of risk-taking. If the die is unbiased, one’s decision to accept the bet is taken with the knowledge that one has a 50 per cent chance of winning and losing. Scientists cannot afford to confound the concepts of risk and uncertainty Contaminating these 2 concepts and not adhering to the uncertainty/risk (U/R) distinction is problematic, as this distinction has been supported by various studies showing that it is conceptually and empirically valid. These studies primarily come from three scientific disciplines: economics, psychology, and neurobiology
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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
