Cognitive models of risky choice: parameter stability and predictive accuracy of prospect theory

In the behavioral sciences, a popular approach to describe and predict behavior is cognitive modeling with adjustable parameters (i.e., which can be fitted to data). Modeling with adjustable parameters allows, among other things, measuring differences between people. At the same time, parameter estimation also bears the risk of overfitting. Are individual differences as measured by model parameters stable enough to improve the ability to predict behavior as compared to modeling without adjustable parameters? We examined this issue in cumulative prospect theory (CPT), arguably the most widely used framework to model decisions under risk. Specifically, we examined (a) the temporal stability of CPT’s parameters; and (b) how well different implementations of CPT, varying in the number of adjustable parameters, predict individual choice relative to models with no adjustable parameters (such as CPT with fixed parameters, expected value theory, and various heuristics). We presented participants with risky choice problems and fitted CPT to each individual’s choices in two separate sessions (which were 1 week apart). All parameters were correlated across time, in particular when using a simple implementation of CPT. CPT allowing for individual variability in parameter values predicted individual choice better than CPT with fixed parameters, expected value theory, and the heuristics. CPT’s parameters thus seem to pick up stable individual differences that need to be considered when predicting risky choice.     

个体权力高低对其损失规避的影响

摘 要 以中国大学生为被试,采用问卷的方式,探讨权力对损失规避倾向的影响。实验一发现,与低权力被试相比,高权力被试具有较少的损失规避。实验二进一步考察权力影响损失规避的原因机制,结果发现,权力对收益的价值估计没有影响,但降低了个体对损失的价值估计,从而导致损失规避的减少。结果表明,权力除了激活个体对收益的趋近,还可能抑制个体对损失的感知,权力也是影响决策的因素之一。 关键词 权力 损失规避 估计价值     

不同类型罪犯在爱荷华赌博任务中的决策功能缺陷

采用爱荷华赌博任务(Behcara等人1994年版本)测量了8类共222名在监男性罪犯以及32名普通男性的决策功能, 并运用前景效用学习模型分析了不同类型罪犯在情感决策中的心理功能缺陷。罪犯组选择牌1的比例与控制组没有显著差异, 选择牌2的比例显著高于控制组, 选择牌3和牌4的比例显著低于控制组。暴力犯和涉黑犯对收益和损失都不敏感, 对过去的预期效用折扣很快; 吸毒犯(已戒除)、涉毒犯、盗窃犯和抢劫犯对奖赏加工正常, 对惩罚不敏感; 经济犯选择一致性最低; 性罪犯选择一致性最高。结果表明不同类型罪犯在爱荷华赌博任务中都具有决策功能缺陷, 但他们的决策功能缺陷由不同的心理功能缺陷所致。     

Interoceptive ability predicts aversion to losses

Emotions have been proposed to inform risky decision-making through the influence of affective physiological responses on subjective value. The ability to perceive internal body states, or “interoception” may influence this relationship. Here, we examined whether interoception predicts participants' degree of loss aversion, which has been previously linked to choice-related arousal responses. Participants performed both a heartbeat-detection task indexing interoception and a risky monetary decision-making task, from which loss aversion, risk attitudes and choice consistency were parametrically measured. Interoceptive ability correlated selectively with loss aversion and was unrelated to the other value parameters. This finding suggests that specific and separable component processes underlying valuation are shaped not only by our physiological responses, as shown in previous findings, but also by our interoceptive access to such signals.     

A Sense of ‘unrealness’ about the death of a loved‐one: An exploratory study of its role in emotional complications among bereaved individuals

After a loss, some people develop complicated grief (CG) and depression. A recent cognitive‐behavioural model postulates that three processes account for such problems: (a) lack of integration of the loss with implicit autobiographical knowledge about the relationship with the lost person, (b) negative cognitions and (c) avoidance behaviours. In the current study, it was proposed that the ‘lack of integration of the loss’ is mainly an implicit process, but has an explicit, introspectively accessible counterpart in the form of ‘a sense of unrealness’ that can be defined as a subjective sense of uncertainty or ambivalence about the irreversibility of the separation. The role of this ‘sense of unrealness’ was studied using self‐reported data from 397 mourners. Among other things, findings showed that items constituting unrealness were distinct from those of CG and depression. In addition, unrealness was significantly associated with CG, when controlling for negative cognitions, avoidance and concomitant depression. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

行为经济学中的损失规避

损失规避是指,人们总是强烈倾向于规避损失：一定数额的损失所引起的心理感受,其强烈程度约相当于两倍数额的获益感受。这种强烈的心理与行为倾向广泛存在于风险与非风险领域,在该两个领域中损失规避的研究范式也不同。损失规避常见于经济和消费等领域,可用于解释行为决策中有悖于规范化理论的诸多现象,如禀赋效应、现状偏差、股权溢价之迷和赢者的诅咒等。然而,损失规避的机制研究还存在许多尚未解决的问题,如损失规避的本质以及适用条件。今后的研究不仅要注重认知角度和情感依恋,还要结合认知过程来研究损失规避的性质和内在机制,以期帮助人们认识、预测及干预由损失规避造成的经济损失和非理性决策。     

The behavioural components of risk aversion

There have been few theoretical investigations of risk attitude within Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT). Unlike expected utility theory, in CPT risk attitude is affected by loss aversion and decision weight distortions as well as utility curvature for both gains and losses. We introduce two variants of the risk premium—the total risk premium relative to expected value, and the behavioural risk premium relative to the imputed behavioural expected value. Approximate solutions for each using Pratt's [(1964). Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica, 32, 122-136] methodology show that the CPT risk premium is composed of two components: the first, analogous to the Pratt-Arrow coefficient of risk aversion, governs the contribution of the curvature of the value function to risk aversion; the second governs the first-order contribution of loss aversion. Both of these terms are made more complex by the introduction of decision weights. We analyse the contribution of each component and provide sufficient conditions to ensure risk aversion in CPT.     

Moderating Loss Aversion: Loss Aversion Has Moderators,But Reports of its Death are Greatly Exaggerated

Loss aversion, the principle that losses impact decision making more than equivalent gains, is a fundamental idea in consumer behavior and decision making, though its existence has recently been called into question. Across five unique samples (N_total = 17,720), we tested several moderators of loss aversion, which supported a preference construction account. Across studies, more domain knowledge and experience were associated with lower loss aversion, though people of all knowledge and experience levels were loss averse. Among car buyers, those who knew more about a particular car attribute (e.g., fuel economy) were less loss averse for that attribute but not other attributes (e.g., comfort), consistent with the idea that people with less attribute knowledge are more likely to construct preferences, thereby increasing loss aversion. Additionally, older consumers were more loss averse across different loss aversion measures and studies. We discuss implications for several accounts of loss aversion, including accounts rooted in status quo bias, emotion, or ownership. In addition to discovering loss aversion moderators, we cast doubt on recent claims that loss aversion is a fallacy or is fully explained by status quo bias, risk aversion, or the educated laboratory samples often used to study loss aversion.     

Promoting a Brand's Emotion Benefits: The Influence of Emotion Categorization Processes on Consumer Evaluations

Research in psychology has demonstrated that people have a shared knowledge of emotion categories. Building on this research and our understanding of categorization processes, this article proposes a mechanism by which consumers utilize information about a brand's “emotion benefits” in forming attitudes. The results of 2 experimental studies show that (a) consumers’ processing of a brand's emotion benefit information is consistent with categorization processes such that emotion category congruity effects are large in basic—versus subordinate—level conditions, (b) associating a brand with certain emotions can influence brand and ad attitudes without necessarily eliciting emotions during exposure to advertising, (c) emotion category congruity “works” through attitude‐toward‐the‐ad and emotion benefit beliefs in influencing brand attitudes, and (d) subjective product category knowledge moderates the strength of these effects. Taken together, these results explicate the process by which a knowledge‐based consideration of a brand's emotional benefits can influence consumers’ beliefs about the brand and brand attitudes.     

情绪调节自我效能感与主观幸福感：情绪调节方式的中介作用

本研究的目的在于探讨青少年情绪调节自我效能感与主观幸福感之间的关系及情绪调节方式在其中的中介作用。采用《情绪调节自我效能感量表》、《情绪调节方式量表》和《主观幸福感量表》对1128名中学生进行测查,结果表明：(1) 情绪调节自我效能感与情绪调节方式、生活满意度、积极情感、消极情感关系紧密;(2) 情绪调节自我效能感和情绪调节方式可显著预测主观幸福感;(3) 减弱调节在情绪调节自我效能感与主观幸福感间起部分中介作用。     

澳门人少涉赌是规避风险还是规避后悔？

是风险规避还是后悔规避左右人们的冒险行为？基于风险行为跨领域特殊性,本研究假设：决策者是规避风险还是规避后悔具有领域特异性。本研究选取有涉赌经验的澳门居民为样本,以其参与13种博彩的次数为指标考察其真实风险行为。结果验证了上述假设,风险规避说或后悔规避说都不能单独解释个体的风险倾向,个体是风险规避、后悔规避,或二者皆有,取决于其所处的具体风险情境类别。该发现有助于加深对风险行为特征的认识,亦可为预防及应对问题赌博提供启发和指导。     

结果评价中自我体验与替代体验的参照点效应:一项赌博游戏的ERPs研究

本研究采用"投注—反馈"的虚拟赌博游戏范式,通过2个实验分别检测个体在评价自己决策结果 (实验1)和观察他人决策结果 (实验2)过程中赌注大小(即参照点)对大脑活动的影响。结果发现:(1)体验自我决策结果时,输钱比赢钱诱发更负的FRN,仅有一个负反馈(-10元)表现出以赌注为界的分离,且相对效价一样的反馈值诱发的FRN差异不显著;(2)体验他人决策结果时,无论输赢,有赌注比无赌注诱发的FRN更负;而且相对效价相同的反馈值诱发的FRN差异不显著。据此可以认为,FRN一定程度上反映了以赌注为基准的主观标准对社会信息的评价判断:自我体验中的个体对损失的敏感度远高于收益;而替代体验中的个体更倾向于将"损失更多"看作一种负性结果。     

How beliefs influence the relative magnitude of pleasure and pain

Loss aversion is an economic assumption about utility—people value giving up a good more than they value getting it. It also has hedonic meaning—the pain of a loss is greater in magnitude than the pleasure of a comparable gain. But value and pleasure are not necessarily identical. We test the hedonic interpretation of loss aversion in experimental markets. With hedonic forecasts, sellers imagine the pain of losing their endowment, and buyers imagine the pleasure of being endowed. With hedonic experiences, sellers rate the pleasure of having the endowment, and buyers rate the pain of being without it. Contrary to loss aversion, predicted pleasure is greater in magnitude than predicted pain, and experienced pleasure surpasses experienced pain. We show that the relative magnitude of pleasure and pain depends on beliefs about the likelihood of outcomes, as well as utilities. Surprise makes gains more pleasurable and losses more painful. With surprising gains and expected losses, pleasure can surpass pain. But when gains and losses are equally likely (or losses are surprising and gains are expected), the opposite pattern can occur. Finally, within‐group and between‐group prices are significantly correlated with hedonic experiences. Sellers who feel better with their endowments assign higher selling prices, and buyers who feel worse about the absence of endowment assign higher buying prices. Despite the fact that hedonic experiences deviate from loss aversion, these emotions predict the endowment effect. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

损失规避的产生根源

损失规避是指由损失引发的负效用大于由等量收益引发的正效用的现象, 其产生根源能够从神经经济学和进化心理学两个方向进行解释。损失规避的脑机制分为两个系统：主观价值评价系统主要包括纹状体和前额皮层, 与主观价值的评估有关; 情绪唤醒系统主要包括杏仁核和脑岛, 与厌恶等消极情绪有关。在进化心理学的视角下, 通过回顾有关动物决策行为的研究来探索损失规避行为的进化历史, 并结合相关进化理论总结该行为产生的进化原因。未来可探索与行为损失规避相关的神经递质, 进一步研究损失规避的产生根源。     

Prospects behind bars: Analyzing decisions under risk in a prison population

Criminal activity often involves considerable risks. It is therefore not surprising that criminals have been speculated to differ from noncriminals in risk attitude. Yet, few data exist to support this assumption. Moreover, the psychological underpinnings of differences in risk attitude are currently little understood. We presented prisoners and controls with sets of risky decision tasks and modeled their responses using cumulative prospect theory (CPT). The two groups showed several differences. Prisoners were more risk seeking than nonprisoners in lotteries involving losses, but they were less risk seeking in lotteries involving high-probability gains. Bestfitting CPT parameters indicated a reduced sensitivity to outcomes, for both gains and losses, and a stronger loss aversion among prisoners. In addition, prisoners showed a diminished sensitivity to the probability of gains. Our results contribute to a better understanding of prisoners’ risk attitudes and the underlying mechanisms that distinguish prisoners from nonprisoners and may thus help improve interventions designed to prevent crime.     

参照依赖和损失规避对个体收入分配公平判断的影响

收入分配公平判断是人们对自己收入所得公平与否的主观评价。通过对参照点和收入金额的控制,探讨参照依赖和损失规避对收入分配公平判断的共同影响。结果发现,(1)民众的收入公平判断受参照点的影响,在有参照点的情景下比无参照点情景下更感觉不公平;(2)不同工资水平下,民众的公平判断具有显著差异,而且民众对低于平均工资的“受损”比高于平均工资同等金额的“受益”赋予的公平感的权重更大,即存在得失感受的不对称;(3)不同的工资参照点、多得和少得的分配结果共同影响民众的公平判断,即损失规避在参照依赖对公平判断的影响中起调节作用。     

Health-Related Risk Perception and Decision-Making: Lessons from the Study of Motives in Social Psychology

Much research in the decision sciences has shown that risk perception and decision-making are influenced not only by cognitive processes – such as the use of statistical 'rules of thumb'– but also by motives such as loss aversion, ambiguity aversion, and regret aversion. The field of social psychology has long been interested in a variety of motives that influence self-judgment, social perception, and interpersonal relations. These include, among others, self-enhancement, social comparison, predictability/control, favorable self-presentation, effective resource management, preparedness for bad news, goal attainment, and existential meaning. We suggest that more attention to these motives would greatly strengthen our understanding of how people think about risk and how they make decisions. In this article, we consider the influence of motives on risk perception and decision-making in the context of health outcomes. We argue that theories relating to these various motives (e.g., social comparison theory) can be greatly enhanced by testing them in the context of health-related risk perception and decision-making.     

Loss Aversion,Intellectual Inertia,and a Call for a More Contrarian Science: A Reply to Simonson & Kivetz and Higgins & Liberman

Higgins and Liberman (2018) and Simonson and Kivetz (2018) offer scholarly and stimulating perspectives on loss aversion and the implications for the sociology of science of its acceptance as a virtual law of nature. In our view, Higgins and Liberman (2018) largely complement our conclusion that the empirical evidence does not support loss aversion. Moreover, in alignment with our call for a contextualized perspective, they provide an excellent discourse on how a more nuanced view of reference points and consumers’ regulatory focus enriches our understanding of the psychological impact of losses and gains. Simonson and Kivetz (2018) approached our perspective with skepticism, and, while they retain some skepticism, they express agreement on the larger point that loss aversion has been accepted too uncritically. Both commentaries point to a need for a critical reevaluation of prevailing paradigms. Here, we build on these perspectives, as well as our experience working on the topic of loss aversion, to call for structural changes to facilitate scholarly debate on science's status quo.