Literature DB >> 11516113

Risk-sensitive choice in humans as a function of an earnings budget.

C J Pietras1, T D Hackenberc.   

Abstract

Risky choice in 3 adult humans was investigated across procedural manipulations designed to model energy-budget manipulations conducted with nonhumans. Subjects were presented with repeated choices between a fixed and a variable number of points. An energy budget was simulated by use of an earnings budget, defined as the number of points needed within a block of trials for points to be exchanged for money. During positive earnings-budget conditions, exclusive preference for the fixed option met the earnings requirement. During negative earnings-budget conditions, exclusive preference for the certain option did not meet the earnings requirement, but choice for the variable option met the requirement probabilistically. Choice was generally risk averse (the fixed option was preferred) when the earnings budget was positive and risk prone (the variable option was preferred) when the earnings budget was negative. Furthermore, choice was most risk prone during negative earnings-budget conditions in which the earnings requirement was most stringent. Local choice patterns were also frequently consistent with the predictions of a dynamic optimization model, indicating that choice was simultaneously sensitive to short-term choice contingencies, current point earnings, and the earnings requirement. Overall, these results show that the patterns of risky choice generated by energy-budget variables can also be produced by choice contingencies that do not involve immediate survival, and that risky choice in humans may be similar to that shown in nonhumans when choice is studied under analogous experimental conditions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11516113      PMCID: PMC1285017          DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2001.76-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav        ISSN: 0022-5002            Impact factor:   2.468


  9 in total

1.  Framing and conflict: aspiration level contingency, the status quo, and current theories of risky choice.

Authors:  S L Schneider
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 3.051

2.  Choice in the repeated-gambles experiment.

Authors:  A Silberberg; P Murray; J Christensen; T Asano
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  Risky choice as a function of amount and variance in food supply.

Authors:  T Hastjarjo; A Silberberg; S R Hursh
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1990-01       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Risk-sensitive foraging theory and operant psychology.

Authors:  A I Houston
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1991-11       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  A general framework for understanding the effects of variability and interruptions on foraging behaviour.

Authors:  J M McNamara; A I Houston
Journal:  Acta Biotheor       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 1.774

6.  Choice between constant and variable alternatives by rats: effects of different reinforcer amounts and energy budgets.

Authors:  M Ito; S Takatsuru; D Saeki
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.

Authors:  A Tversky; D Kahneman
Journal:  Science       Date:  1981-01-30       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Self-control in adult humans: variation in positive reinforcer amount and delay.

Authors:  A W Logue; T E Peña-Correal; M L Rodriguez; E Kabela
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 2.468

9.  Humans' choices in situations of time-based diminishing returns: effects of fixed-interval duration and progressive-interval step size.

Authors:  E A Jacobs; T D Hackenberg
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 2.468

  9 in total
  6 in total

1.  Contextual control of delay discounting by pathological gamblers.

Authors:  Mark R Dixon; Eric A Jacobs; Scott Sanders
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2006

2.  Economic inequality increases risk taking.

Authors:  B Keith Payne; Jazmin L Brown-Iannuzzi; Jason W Hannay
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-04-17       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Framing effects and risky decisions in starlings.

Authors:  Barnaby Marsh; Alex Kacelnik
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2002-02-26       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Metabolic state alters economic decision making under risk in humans.

Authors:  Mkael Symmonds; Julian J Emmanuel; Megan E Drew; Rachel L Batterham; Raymond J Dolan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-06-16       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Human risky choice under temporal constraints: tests of an energy-budget model.

Authors:  Cynthia J Pietras; Matthew L Locey; Timothy D Hackenberg
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Saving the best for last? A cross-species analysis of choices between reinforcer sequences.

Authors:  Leonardo F Andrade; Timothy D Hackenberg
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 2.468

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.