IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/natcom/v15y2024i1d10.1038_s41467-024-48547-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Heuristics in risky decision-making relate to preferential representation of information

Author

Listed:
  • Evan M. Russek

    (Queen Square Institute of Neurology
    University College London, Queen Square Institute of Neurology
    Princeton University)

  • Rani Moran

    (Queen Square Institute of Neurology
    University College London, Queen Square Institute of Neurology
    Queen Mary University of London)

  • Yunzhe Liu

    (Beijing Normal University
    Chinese Institute for Brain Research)

  • Raymond J. Dolan

    (Queen Square Institute of Neurology
    University College London, Queen Square Institute of Neurology)

  • Quentin J. M. Huys

    (Queen Square Institute of Neurology
    University College London, Queen Square Institute of Neurology
    Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust
    University College London)

Abstract

When making choices, individuals differ from one another, as well as from normativity, in how they weigh different types of information. One explanation for this relates to idiosyncratic preferences in what information individuals represent when evaluating choice options. Here, we test this explanation with a simple risky-decision making task, combined with magnetoencephalography (MEG). We examine the relationship between individual differences in behavioral markers of information weighting and neural representation of stimuli pertinent to incorporating that information. We find that the extent to which individuals (N = 19) behaviorally weight probability versus reward information is related to how preferentially they neurally represent stimuli most informative for making probability and reward comparisons. These results are further validated in an additional behavioral experiment (N = 88) that measures stimulus representation as the latency of perceptual detection following priming. Overall, the results suggest that differences in the information individuals consider during choice relate to their risk-taking tendencies.

Suggested Citation

  • Evan M. Russek & Rani Moran & Yunzhe Liu & Raymond J. Dolan & Quentin J. M. Huys, 2024. "Heuristics in risky decision-making relate to preferential representation of information," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-16, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:15:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-024-48547-z
    DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-48547-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48547-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41467-024-48547-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. G. Elliott Wimmer & Christian Büchel, 2019. "Learning of distant state predictions by the orbitofrontal cortex in humans," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Nicolette J. Sullivan & Scott A. Huettel, 2021. "Healthful choices depend on the latency and rate of information accumulation," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(12), pages 1698-1706, December.
    4. Frederick Callaway & Bas Opheusden & Sayan Gul & Priyam Das & Paul M. Krueger & Thomas L. Griffiths & Falk Lieder, 2022. "Publisher Correction: Rational use of cognitive resources in human planning," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(7), pages 1027-1027, July.
    5. Marion Rouault & Jan Drugowitsch & Etienne Koechlin, 2019. "Prefrontal mechanisms combining rewards and beliefs in human decision-making," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, December.
    6. Einhorn, Hillel J & Hogarth, Robin M, 1986. "Decision Making under Ambiguity," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 225-250, October.
    7. Giuseppe Castegnetti & Athina Tzovara & Saurabh Khemka & Filip Melinščak & Gareth R. Barnes & Raymond J. Dolan & Dominik R. Bach, 2020. "Representation of probabilistic outcomes during risky decision-making," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.
    8. Frederick Callaway & Bas Opheusden & Sayan Gul & Priyam Das & Paul M. Krueger & Thomas L. Griffiths & Falk Lieder, 2022. "Rational use of cognitive resources in human planning," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(8), pages 1112-1125, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shawn P. Curley & Mark J. Young & J. Frank Yates, 1989. "Characterizing Physicians' Perceptions of Ambiguity," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 9(2), pages 116-124, June.
    2. Peter, Richard & Ying, Jie, 2020. "Do you trust your insurer? Ambiguity about contract nonperformance and optimal insurance demand," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 938-954.
    3. Scholz, Roland W. & Czichos, Reiner & Parycek, Peter & Lampoltshammer, Thomas J., 2020. "Organizational vulnerability of digital threats: A first validation of an assessment method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(2), pages 627-643.
    4. Mercè Roca & Robin Hogarth & A. Maule, 2006. "Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 175-194, May.
    5. Humphrey, Steven J., 1996. "Do anchoring effects underlie event-splitting effects? An experimental test," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 303-308, June.
    6. Théodora Dupont-Courtade, 2012. "Insurance demand under ambiguity and conflict for extreme risks : Evidence from a large representative survey," Post-Print halshs-00718642, HAL.
    7. Jean Desrochers & J. Francois Outreville, 2013. "Uncertainty, Ambiguity and Risk Taking: an experimental investigation of consumer behavior and demand for insurance," ICER Working Papers 10-2013, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    8. Carmela Di Mauro & Anna Maffioletti, 2004. "Attitudes to risk and attitudes to uncertainty: experimental evidence," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(4), pages 357-372.
    9. Marc Willinger, 1990. "La rénovation des fondements de l'utilité et du risque," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 41(1), pages 5-48.
    10. Shawn P. Curley, 2007. "The application of Dempster-Shafer theory demonstrated with justification provided by legal evidence," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 257-276, October.
    11. Marcello Basili & Carlo Zappia, 2007. "The weight of argument and non-additive measures: a note," Department of Economic Policy, Finance and Development (DEPFID) University of Siena 003, Department of Economic Policy, Finance and Development (DEPFID), University of Siena.
    12. Iraj Khalid & Belina Rodrigues & Hippolyte Dreyfus & Solène Frileux & Karin Meissner & Philippe Fossati & Todd Anthony Hare & Liane Schmidt, 2024. "Mapping expectancy-based appetitive placebo effects onto the brain in women," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-16, December.
    13. Chu, Hsunchi & Liao, Shuling, 2010. "Buying while expecting to sell: The economic psychology of online resale," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(9-10), pages 1073-1078, September.
    14. Roca, Mercè & Maule, A. John, 2009. "The effects of endowment on the demand for probabilistic information," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 56-66, May.
    15. Liu, Hsin-Hsien & Colman, Andrew M., 2009. "Ambiguity aversion in the long run: Repeated decisions under risk and uncertainty," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 277-284, June.
    16. Huber, Jürgen & Kirchler, Michael & Stefan, Matthias, 2014. "Experimental evidence on varying uncertainty and skewness in laboratory double-auction markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PB), pages 798-809.
    17. Koch, Christopher & Schunk, Daniel, 2007. "The Case for Limited Auditor Liability - The Effects of Liability Size on Risk Aversion and Ambiguity Aversion," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 07-04, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    18. Théodora Dupont-Courtade, 2012. "Insurance demand under ambiguity and conflict for extreme risks : Evidence from a large representative survey," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00718642, HAL.
    19. Anja Lambrecht & Bernd Skiera, 2006. "Ursachen eines Flatrate-Bias — Systematisierung und Messung der Einflussfaktoren," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 58(5), pages 588-617, August.
    20. David Dequech, 2008. "Varieties of uncertainty: a survey of the economic literature," Anais do XXXVI Encontro Nacional de Economia [Proceedings of the 36th Brazilian Economics Meeting] 200807211223070, ANPEC - Associação Nacional dos Centros de Pós-Graduação em Economia [Brazilian Association of Graduate Programs in Economics].

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:15:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-024-48547-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.