IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v37y2017i9p1632-1643.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Age and Adaptation: Stronger Decision Updating about Real World Risks in Older Age

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan J Rolison
  • Stacey Wood
  • Yaniv Hanoch

Abstract

In later life, people are faced with a multitude of risky decisions that concern their health, finance, and personal security. Older adults often exercise caution in situations that involve risk. In this research, we asked whether older adults are also more responsive to warnings about potential risk. An answer to this question could reveal a factor underlying increased cautiousness in older age. In Study 1, participants decided whether they would engage in risky activities (e.g., using an ATM machine in the street) in four realistic scenarios about which participants could be expected to have relevant knowledge or experience. They then made posterior decisions after listening to audio extracts of real reports relevant to each activity. In Study 2, we explored the role that emotions play in decision updating. As in Study 1, participants made prior and posterior decisions, with the exception that for each scenario the reports were presented in their original audio format (high emotive) or in a written transcript format (low emotive). Following each posterior decision, participants indicated their emotional valence and arousal responses to the reports. In both studies, older adults engaged in fewer risky activities than younger adults, indicative of increased cautiousness in older age, and exhibited stronger decision updating in response to the reports. Older adults also showed stronger emotional responses to the reports, even though emotional responses did not differ for audio and written transcript formats. Finally, age differences in emotional responses to the reports accounted for age differences in decision updating.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan J Rolison & Stacey Wood & Yaniv Hanoch, 2017. "Age and Adaptation: Stronger Decision Updating about Real World Risks in Older Age," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(9), pages 1632-1643, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:9:p:1632-1643
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12710
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12710
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12710?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. Yaniv, Ilan & Kleinberger, Eli, 2000. "Advice Taking in Decision Making: Egocentric Discounting and Reputation Formation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 260-281, November.
    2. Harvey, Nigel & Harries, Clare, 2004. "Effects of judges' forecasting on their later combination of forecasts for the same outcomes," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 391-409.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:3:p:241-264 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Bonaccio, Silvia & Dalal, Reeshad S., 2006. "Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 127-151, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yanbo Zhang & Yibao Wang & Ahmad Bayiz Ahmad & Ashfaq Ahmad Shah & Wen Qing, 2021. "How Do Individual-Level Characteristics Influence Cross-Domain Risk Perceptions Among Chinese Urban Residents?," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, April.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1413-1438 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Sproten, Alec N. & Diener, Carsten & Fiebach, Christian J. & Schwieren, Christiane, 2018. "Decision making and age: Factors influencing decision making under uncertainty," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 43-54.
    4. Jacqueline N. Zadelaar & Joost A. Agelink van Rentergem & Jessica V. Schaaf & Tycho J. Dekkers & Nathalie de Vent & Laura M. S. Dekkers & Maria C. Olthof & Brenda R. J. Jansen & Hilde M. Huizenga, 2021. "Development of decision making based on internal and external information: A hierarchical Bayesian approach," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(6), pages 1413-1438, November.

    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. Gehrig, Thomas & Güth, Werner & Leví0nský, René & Popova, Vera, 2010. "On the evolution of professional consulting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 113-126, October.
    2. Kausel, Edgar E. & Culbertson, Satoris S. & Leiva, Pedro I. & Slaughter, Jerel E. & Jackson, Alexander T., 2015. "Too arrogant for their own good? Why and when narcissists dismiss advice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 33-50.
    3. Albert E. Mannes, 2009. "Are We Wise About the Wisdom of Crowds? The Use of Group Judgments in Belief Revision," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(8), pages 1267-1279, August.
    4. Winkler, Jens & Moser, Roger, 2016. "Biases in future-oriented Delphi studies: A cognitive perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 63-76.
    5. Soll, Jack B. & Mannes, Albert E., 2011. "Judgmental aggregation strategies depend on whether the self is involved," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 81-102.
    6. Soll, Jack B. & Mannes, Albert E., 2011. "Judgmental aggregation strategies depend on whether the self is involved," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 81-102, January.
    7. Atanasov, Pavel & Witkowski, Jens & Ungar, Lyle & Mellers, Barbara & Tetlock, Philip, 2020. "Small steps to accuracy: Incremental belief updaters are better forecasters," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 19-35.
    8. Leitner, Johannes & Leopold-Wildburger, Ulrike, 2011. "Experiments on forecasting behavior with several sources of information - A review of the literature," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 213(3), pages 459-469, September.
    9. Avery, Christopher & Castleman, Benjamin L. & Hurwitz, Michael & Long, Bridget Terry & Page, Lindsay C., 2021. "Digital messaging to improve college enrollment and success," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    10. Gino, Francesca, 2008. "Do we listen to advice just because we paid for it? The impact of advice cost on its use," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 234-245, November.
    11. Logg, Jennifer M. & Minson, Julia A. & Moore, Don A., 2019. "Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 90-103.
    12. Merle, Aurélie & St-Onge, Anik & Sénécal, Sylvain, 2022. "Does it pay to be honest? The effect of retailer-provided negative feedback on consumers’ product choice and shopping experience," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 532-543.
    13. Alison Wood Brooks & Francesca Gino & Maurice E. Schweitzer, 2015. "Smart People Ask for (My) Advice: Seeking Advice Boosts Perceptions of Competence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1421-1435, June.
    14. Robert M. Gillenkirch & Julia Ortner & Sebastian Robert & Louis Velthuis, 2023. "Designing incentives and performance measurement for advisors: How to make decision-makers listen to advice," Working Papers 2304, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    15. Amaral, Christopher & Kolsarici, Ceren, 2020. "The financial advice puzzle: The role of consumer heterogeneity in the advisor choice," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    16. Bonaccio, Silvia & Dalal, Reeshad S., 2006. "Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 127-151, November.
    17. Chen Li & Ning Liu, 2021. "What to tell? Wise communication and wise crowd," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(2), pages 279-299, March.
    18. Ilan Yaniv & Shoham Choshen-Hillel, 2012. "When guessing what another person would say is better than giving your own opinion: Using perspective-taking to improve advice-taking," Discussion Paper Series dp622, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:3:p:349-363 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Jodlbauer, Barbara & Jonas, Eva, 2011. "Forecasting clients' reactions: How does the perception of strategic behavior influence the acceptance of advice?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 121-133, January.
    21. Irene Scopelliti & Carey K. Morewedge & Erin McCormick & H. Lauren Min & Sophie Lebrecht & Karim S. Kassam, 2015. "Bias Blind Spot: Structure, Measurement, and Consequences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(10), pages 2468-2486, 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:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:9:p:1632-1643. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.