Tradeoffs and Conflict in Risky Choice: The Argumentation Model

Abstract

We present the argumentation model, a new model of conflict in risky choice, and apply it to elementary tradeoffs between outcome probability and magnitude. The model postulates two deliberation modes: Pro-argumentation (focusing on advantages), the conflict from which is negatively related to tradeoff size, and contra-argumentation (focusing on disadvantages), the conflict from which is positively related to tradeoff size. We propose that deliberation is biased toward pro-argumentation, so that, when additional cognitive resources must be deployed, more of these resources are allocated to pro-argumentation. We confirm that, when the outcomes are losses or when the decision maker has no distinctly rational or experiential thinking style, the mediating effect of pro-argumentation increases more than the mediating effect of contra-argumentation, and the relation between tradeoff size and conflict changes in a downward direction (specifically, from positive to inverse U-shaped). We discuss how the analysis of conflict can disclose processes of decision making.