IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0068177.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assaying the Effect of Levodopa on the Evaluation of Risk in Healthy Humans

Author

Listed:
  • Mkael Symmonds
  • Nicholas D Wright
  • Elizabeth Fagan
  • Raymond J Dolan

Abstract

In humans, dopamine is implicated in reward and risk-based decision-making. However, the specific effects of dopamine augmentation on risk evaluation are unclear. Here we sought to measure the effect of 100 mg oral levodopa, which enhances synaptic release of dopamine, on choice behaviour in healthy humans. We use a paradigm without feedback or learning, which solely isolates effects on risk evaluation. We present two studies (n = 20; n = 20) employing a randomised, placebo-controlled, within-subjects design. We manipulated different dimensions of risk in a controlled economic paradigm. We test effects on risk-reward tradeoffs, assaying both aversion to variance (the spread of possible outcomes) and preference for relative losses and gains (asymmetry of outcomes - skewness), dissociating this from potential non-specific effects on choice randomness using behavioural modelling. There were no systematic effects of levodopa on risk attitudes, either for variance or skewness. However, there was a drift towards more risk-averse behaviour over time, indicating that this paradigm was sensitive to detect changes in risk-preferences. These findings suggest that levodopa administration does not change the evaluation of risk. One possible reason is that dopaminergic influences on decision making may be due to changing the response to reward feedback.

Suggested Citation

  • Mkael Symmonds & Nicholas D Wright & Elizabeth Fagan & Raymond J Dolan, 2013. "Assaying the Effect of Levodopa on the Evaluation of Risk in Healthy Humans," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-10, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0068177
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068177
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0068177
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0068177&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0068177?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. Burkhard Pleger & Christian C Ruff & Felix Blankenburg & Stefan Klöppel & Jon Driver & Raymond J Dolan, 2009. "Influence of Dopaminergically Mediated Reward on Somatosensory Decision-Making," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(7), pages 1-10, July.
    2. Rothschild, Michael & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1971. "Increasing risk II: Its economic consequences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 66-84, March.
    3. Alderfer, Clayton P & Bierman, Harold, Jr, 1970. "Choices with Risk: Beyond the Mean and Variance," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 43(3), pages 341-353, July.
    4. Camelia Kuhnen & Brian Knutson, 2005. "The Neural Basis of Financial Risk Taking," Experimental 0509001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    6. Joseph Golec & Maurry Tamarkin, 1998. "Bettors Love Skewness, Not Risk, at the Horse Track," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(1), pages 205-225, February.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:2:y:2007:i::p:225-233 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Peter C. Fishburn, 1984. "Foundations of Risk Measurement. I. Risk As Probable Loss," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 396-406, April.
    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. Kiyohiko G. Nishimura & Hiroyuki Ozaki, 2001. "Search under the Knightian Uncertainty," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-112, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    2. Loïc Berger & Louis Eeckhoudt, 2021. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Value of Diversification," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1639-1647, March.
    3. Yang, Jiping & Qiu, Wanhua, 2005. "A measure of risk and a decision-making model based on expected utility and entropy," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 164(3), pages 792-799, August.
    4. Takao Asano & Yusuke Osaki, 2017. "Portfolio Allocation Problems between Risky Ambiguous Assets," KIER Working Papers 975, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    5. 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.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:2:y:2007:i::p:312-316 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2006. "Les nouveaux modèles de décision dans le risque et l’incertain : quel apport ? [The new models of decision under risk or uncertainty : What approach?]," MPRA Paper 25442, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Simon Quemin, 2016. "Intertemporal abatement decisions under ambiguity aversion in a cap and trade," Working Papers 1604, Chaire Economie du climat.
    9. Vesna Prasnikar, 1993. "Binary Lottery Payoffs: Do They Control Risk Aversion?," Discussion Papers 1059, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    10. Lang, Matthias & Wambach, Achim, 2013. "The fog of fraud – Mitigating fraud by strategic ambiguity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 255-275.
    11. Caporin, Massimiliano & Costola, Michele & Jannin, Gregory & Maillet, Bertrand, 2018. "“On the (Ab)use of Omega?”," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 11-33.
    12. Guiso, Luigi & Sodini, Paolo, 2013. "Household Finance: An Emerging Field," Handbook of the Economics of Finance, in: G.M. Constantinides & M. Harris & R. M. Stulz (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Finance, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1397-1532, Elsevier.
    13. Bill Woodland & Linda Woodland, 1999. "Expected utility, skewness, and the baseball betting market," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(3), pages 337-345.
    14. Stefanescu, Razvan & Dumitriu, Ramona, 2015. "Alegerea soluţiilor pentru expunerile faţă de risc [Choosing solutions to risk exposures]," MPRA Paper 65074, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Takao Asano & Yusuke Osaki, 2020. "Portfolio allocation problems between risky and ambiguous assets," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 284(1), pages 63-79, January.
    16. Toritseju Begho & Kelvin Balcombe, 2023. "Attitudes to Risk and Uncertainty: New Insights From an Experiment Using Interval Prospects," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, July.
    17. Loïc Berger & Louis Eeckhoudt, 2020. "Risk, Ambiguity, And The Value Of Diversification," Working Papers hal-02910906, HAL.
    18. Phillips Peter J. & Pohl Gabriela, 2018. "The Deferral of Attacks: SP/A Theory as a Model of Terrorist Choice when Losses Are Inevitable," Open Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 71-85, February.
    19. Michał Lewandowski, 2017. "Prospect Theory Versus Expected Utility Theory: Assumptions, Predictions, Intuition and Modelling of Risk Attitudes," Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, vol. 9(4), pages 275-321, December.
    20. Daniel Serra, 2021. "Decision-making: from neuroscience to neuroeconomics—an overview," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 91(1), pages 1-80, July.
    21. Ali Ahmed, 2007. "Decisions under unpredictable losses: An examination of the restated diversification principle," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 312-316, October.

    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:plo:pone00:0068177. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.