Abstract

It is often assumed that decisions are made by rank-ordering and thus comparing the available choice options based on their subjective values. Rank-ordering requires that the alternatives’ subjective values are mentally represented at least on an ordinal scale. Because one alternative cannot be at the same time better and worse than another alternative, choices should satisfy transitivity (if alternative A is preferred over B, and B is preferred over C, A should be preferred over C). Yet, individuals often demonstrate striking violations of transitivity (preferring C over A). We used functional magnetic resonance imaging to study the neural correlates of intransitive choices between gambles varying in magnitude and probability of financial gains. Behavioral intransitivities were common. They occurred because participants did not evaluate the gambles independently, but in comparison with the alternative gamble presented. Neural value signals in prefrontal and parietal cortex were not ordinal-scaled and transitive, but reflected fluctuations in the gambles’ local, pairing-dependent preference-ranks. Detailed behavioral analysis of gamble preferences showed that, depending on the difference in the offered gambles’ attributes, participants gave variable priority to magnitude or probability and thus shifted between preferring richer or safer gambles. The variable, context-dependent priority given to magnitude and probability was tracked by insula (magnitude) and posterior cingulate (probability). Their activation-balance may reflect the individual decision rules leading to intransitivities. Thus, the phenomenon of intransitivity is reflected in the organization of the neural systems involved in risky decision-making.

Highlights

  • It is often assumed that decisions are made by rank-ordering the available choice alternatives according to their subjective desirabilities, and selecting the most desirable alternative (Bernoulli, 1954; Shizgal, 1997; Montague and Berns, 2002)

  • Our results suggest that intransitive decisions occurred because participants did not assess the desirability of a given choice alternative independently, but with respect to the other alternative present

  • We found that activity in key regions for decision-making and value representation, incl

Read more

Summary

Introduction

It is often assumed that decisions are made by rank-ordering the available choice alternatives according to their subjective desirabilities, and selecting the most desirable alternative (Bernoulli, 1954; Shizgal, 1997; Montague and Berns, 2002). Because one alternative cannot be at the same time better and worse than another alternative, choices should satisfy transitivity (Samuelson, 1938; von Neumann and Morgenstern, 1944). Transitivity is not just an intuitively compelling rule; it is a cornerstone of many decision theories, and a hallmark of rational action in economics (Samuelson, 1938; von Neumann and Morgenstern, 1944; Afriat, 1967; Varian, 1982), philosophy (Hume et al, 1978) and biology (Stephens and Krebs, 1986). Intransitive choices can occur when individuals choose between outcomes that vary along several dimensions, for example, monetary gain magnitude and probability (Tversky, 1969), or magnitude and delay (Roelofsma and Read, 2000)

Objectives
Methods
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

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.