More Like this

1. Using dynamic monitoring of choices to predict and understand risk preferences

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2010056117  

   Stillman, Paul E.; Krajbich, Ian; Ferguson, Melissa J. (December 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)

   null (Ed.)

   Navigating conflict is integral to decision-making, serving a central role both in the subjective experience of choice as well as contemporary theories of how we choose. However, the lack of a sensitive, accessible, and interpretable metric of conflict has led researchers to focus on choice itself rather than how individuals arrive at that choice. Using mouse-tracking—continuously sampling computer mouse location as participants decide—we demonstrate the theoretical and practical uses of dynamic assessments of choice from decision onset through conclusion. Specifically, we use mouse tracking to index conflict, quantified by the relative directness to the chosen option, in a domain for which conflict is integral: decisions involving risk. In deciding whether to accept risk, decision makers must integrate gains, losses, status quos, and outcome probabilities, a process that inevitably involves conflict. Across three preregistered studies, we tracked participants’ motor movements while they decided whether to accept or reject gambles. Our results show that 1) mouse-tracking metrics of conflict sensitively detect differences in the subjective value of risky versus certain options; 2) these metrics of conflict strongly predict participants’ risk preferences (loss aversion and decreasing marginal utility), even on a single-trial level; 3) these mouse-tracking metrics outperform participants’ reaction times in predicting risk preferences; and 4) manipulating risk preferences via a broad versus narrow bracketing manipulation influences conflict as indexed by mouse tracking. Together, these results highlight the importance of measuring conflict during risky choice and demonstrate the usefulness of mouse tracking as a tool to do so. 

   more » « less
2. Relationship between Delay Discounting and Risk Preference in Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and Humans

   Keupp, Stefanie; Grueneisen, Sebastian; Warneken, Felix; Ludvig, Elliot Andrew; Melis, Alicia P. (July 2021, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society)

   Adaptive decisions require that decision makers factor in the subjective values of different possible outcomes, and the probability of these outcomes occurring. Subjective values depend, among other things, on how far an outcome is away in time. This can be captured by assessing an individual’s delay discounting of different options. An individual’s risk preference also affects how attractive particular choice options appear to them. In humans, probability discounting and delay discounting are often related. People who show more risky behaviors also tend to be more impulsive and less patient. Based on such findings, single-process models of delay discounting and probability discounting have been suggested. In the current study, we tested if this relationship is equally present in chimpanzees, one of human’s closest extant evolutionary relatives. We presented 23 chimpanzees with a patience task and a risky-choice task. The patience task was designed to explicitly distinguish between delay preference and self-control (i.e., the ability to wait a given delay). Still, we found no strong correlations between risk and delay preferences. As this task has not been used with humans before, we implemented a computerized version and tested it in a sample of twenty adult participants. Initial results indicate that the task is well suited to capture patience, and it makes a promising candidate to be used in behavioral delay discounting experiments in humans. 

   more » « less
3. Absolute and relative stability of loss aversion across contexts.

   https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001513  

   Spektor, Mikhail S; Kellen, David; Rieskamp, Jörg; Klauer, Karl Christoph (February 2024, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General)

   Individuals’ decisions under risk tend to be in line with the notion that“losses loom larger than gains.” This loss aversion in decision making is commonly understood as a stable individual preference that is manifested across different contexts. The presumed stability and generality, which underlies the prominence of loss aversion in the literature at large, has been recently questioned by studies reporting how loss aversion can disappear, and even reverse, as a function of the choice context. The present study investigated whether loss aversion re ects a trait-like attitude of avoiding losses or rather individuals’ adaptability to different con- texts. We report three experiments investigating the within-subject context sensitivity of loss aversion in a two-alternative forced-choice task. Our results show that the choice context can shift people’s loss aversion, though somewhat inconsistently. Moreover, individual estimates of loss aversion are shown to have a con- siderable degree of stability. Altogether, these results indicate that even though the absolute value of loss aversion can be affected by external factors such as the choice context, estimates of people’s loss aversion still capture the relative dispositions toward gains and losses across individuals. 

   more » « less
4. Parental rights or parental wrongs: Parents’ metacognitive knowledge of the factors that influence their school choice decisions

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301768  

   Cash, Trent N; Oppenheimer, Daniel M (April 2024, PLOS ONE)

   Nooripour, Roghieh (Ed.)

   School choice initiatives–which empower parents to choose which schools their children attend–are built on the assumptions that parents know what features of a school are most important to their family and that they are capable of focusing on the most important features when they make their decisions. However, decades of psychological research suggest that decision makers lack metacognitive knowledge of the factors that influence their decisions. We sought to reconcile this discrepancy between the policy assumptions and the psychological research. To do so, we asked participants to complete Choice-Based Conjoint surveys in which they made series of choices between different hypothetical schools. We then asked participants to self-report the weight they placed on each attribute when making their choices. Across four studies, we found that participants did not know how much weight they had placed on various school attributes. Average correlations between stated and revealed weights ranged fromr= .34–.54. Stated weights predicted different choices than revealed weights in 16.41–20.63% of decisions. These metacognitive limitations persisted regardless of whether the participants were parents or non-parents (Study 1a/1b), the nature of the attributes that participants used to evaluate alternatives (Study 2), and whether or not decision makers had access to school ratings that could be used as metacognitive aids (Study 3). In line with prior psychological research–and in contract to policy assumptions–these findings demonstrate that decision makers do not have particularly strong metacognitive knowledge of the factors that influence their school choice decisions. As a result, parents making school choice decisions are likely to seek out and use the wrong information, thus leading to suboptimal school choices. Future research should replicate these results in more ecologically valid samples and test new approaches to school choice that account for these metacognitive limitations. 

   more » « less
5. The signal of institutional governance in early‐stage financing for university spinoffs

   https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1552  

   Belz, Andrea; Graddy‐Reed, Alexandra; Zapatero, Fernando (July 2025, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal)

   Abstract Research SummaryUniversity spinoffs (USOs) translate scientific advancement to economic gains, but the role of the university's governance as a public or private institution is infrequently explored. With a novel dataset of academic entrepreneurs with National Science Foundation I‐Corps training, we examine institutional governance as a fundraising signal. We demonstrate how angel investors and venture capitalists (VCs) show a preference for private USOs. However, with different investment objectives, the groups conduct distinct sensemaking that weighs this cue differently. For angels, industry moderates the effect such that they prefer private university life science firms to public USOs. However, industry mediates the effect for VCs, who prefer life sciences to engineering. We describe this variation as mixed salience—when a signal yields differences in decision‐making for distinct audiences. Managerial SummaryUniversity spinoffs (USOs) are important for economic growth, but little is known about differences between USOs from public and private universities. We study how angel investors and venture capitalists (VCs) fund USOs of public and private schools. These two investor groups make funding decisions with different priorities and approaches. Both groups appear to prefer private universities. A deeper look reveals that angel investors prefer private university life science teams to the public university counterparts. On the other hand, VCs prefer life sciences teams to engineering teams—and life sciences teams are more likely to come from private schools. Evidently, the two investor audiences respond to the public/private distinction in different ways. 

   more » « less