IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/sfb649/sfb649dp2016-011.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cognitive load increases risk aversion

Author

Listed:
  • Gerhardt, Holger
  • Biele, Guido P.
  • Heekeren, Hauke R.
  • Uhlig, Harald

Abstract

We investigate how stable individuals' risk attitudes are with respect to changes in cognitive load. In a laboratory experiment using pairwise lottery choice and a within-subject design, we showthat putting subjects under load via a concurrent working-memory task significantly increases their risk aversion. Subjects made significantly faster choices under load. Regardless of load, they responded faster when choosing the less risky option in safe-risky trials, but not in risky-risky trials. We discuss how these findings relate to both dual-system and unitarysystem theories of decision making.We observe that predictions of both recent dual-system and drift-diffusion models of the decision-making process are confirmed by our data and argue for a convergence of these to-date separate strands of the literature.

Suggested Citation

  • Gerhardt, Holger & Biele, Guido P. & Heekeren, Hauke R. & Uhlig, Harald, 2016. "Cognitive load increases risk aversion," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2016-011, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:sfb649:sfb649dp2016-011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/146180/1/849717159.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wilcox, Nathaniel T., 2011. "'Stochastically more risk averse:' A contextual theory of stochastic discrete choice under risk," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 89-104, May.
    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. Dalton, Patricio S. & Nhung, Nguyen & Rüschenpöhler, Julius, 2020. "Worries of the poor: The impact of financial burden on the risk attitudes of micro-entrepreneurs," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    2. Sean Duffy & J. J. Naddeo & David Owens & John Smith, 2024. "Cognitive Load and Mixed Strategies: On Brains and Minimax," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 26(03), pages 1-34, September.
    3. Clithero, John A., 2018. "Response times in economics: Looking through the lens of sequential sampling models," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 61-86.
    4. Gerhardt, Holger & Schildberg-Hörisch, Hannah & Willrodt, Jana, 2017. "Does self-control depletion affect risk attitudes?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 463-487.
    5. Eric Bonsang & Eve Caroli, 2021. "Cognitive Load and Occupational Injuries," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(2), pages 219-242, April.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:3:p:234-279 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Andreas C Drichoutis & Rodolfo M Nayga, 2020. "Economic Rationality under Cognitive Load," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(632), pages 2382-2409.
    8. Adam Dominiak & Peter Duersch, 2024. "Choice under uncertainty and cognitive load," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 68(2), pages 133-161, April.
    9. Michael Woodford, 2020. "Modeling Imprecision in Perception, Valuation, and Choice," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 579-601, August.
    10. Israel, Avi & Lahav, Eyal & Ziv, Naomi, 2019. "Stop the music? The effect of music on risky financial decisions: An experimental study," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 24(C).
    11. Mark Schneider, 2016. "Dual Process Utility Theory: A Model of Decisions Under Risk and Over Time," Working Papers 16-23, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    12. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2022. "Game form recognition in preference elicitation, cognitive abilities, and cognitive load," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 49-65.
    13. Lau Lilleholt, 2019. "Cognitive ability and risk aversion: A systematic review and meta analysis," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(3), pages 234-279, May.
    14. Deck, Cary & Jahedi, Salar & Sheremeta, Roman, 2021. "On the consistency of cognitive load," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    15. Anja Achtziger & Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Alexander Ritschel, 2020. "Cognitive load in economic decisions," ECON - Working Papers 354, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    16. Michalis Drouvelis & Johannes Lohse, 2020. "Cognitive abilities and risk taking: the role of preferences," Discussion Papers 20-02, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.

    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. Mira Frick & Ryota Iijima & Tomasz Strzalecki, 2019. "Dynamic Random Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(6), pages 1941-2002, November.
    2. Omar Al-Ubaydli, 2011. "How Large Looms the Ghost of the Past? State Dependence versus Heterogeneity in Coordination Games," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 78(2), pages 273-286, October.
    3. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel A. Ballester, 2015. "A Measure of Rationality and Welfare," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 123(6), pages 1278-1310.
    4. Andreas C. Drichoutis & Varvara Kechagia, 2016. "The effect of olfactory sensory cues on economic decision making," Working Papers 2016-4, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    5. Drichoutis, Andreas & Lusk, Jayson, 2012. "Risk preference elicitation without the confounding effect of probability weighting," MPRA Paper 37762, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Breitmoser, Yves, 2016. "Stochastic choice, systematic mistakes and preference estimation," MPRA Paper 72779, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Breitmoser, Yves, 2019. "Knowing me, imagining you: Projection and overbidding in auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 423-447.
    8. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2019. "How related are risk preferences and time preferences?," CLTS Working Papers 4/19, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 16 Oct 2019.
    9. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Angel Ballester, 2014. "Discrete Choice Estimation of Risk Aversion," Working Papers 788, Barcelona School of Economics.
    10. Glenn W. Harrison, 2019. "The behavioral welfare economics of insurance," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 44(2), pages 137-175, September.
    11. Elmaghraby, Wedad J. & Larson, Nathan, 2012. "Explaining deviations from equilibrium in auctions with avoidable fixed costs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 131-159.
    12. Nathaniel T. Wilcox, 2024. "Conditional independence in a binary choice experiment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 205-225, June.
    13. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2013. "Eliciting risk and time preferences under induced mood states," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 18-27.
    14. Stephen L. Cheung, 2020. "Eliciting utility curvature in time preference," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 493-525, June.
    15. Daniel Gregg & John Rolfe, 2018. "Myopia and saliency in renewable resource management," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 62(3), pages 394-419, July.
    16. Mariam Raheem & Ain ul Momina, 2021. "Do Underlying Risk Preferences explain Individuals’ Cognitive Ability? Evidence from a Sample of Pakistani Students," Lahore Journal of Economics, Department of Economics, The Lahore School of Economics, vol. 26(1), pages 85-122, Jan-June.
    17. Kirchkamp, Oliver & Oechssler, Joerg & Sofianos, Andis, 2021. "The Binary Lottery Procedure does not induce risk neutrality in the Holt & Laury and Eckel & Grossman tasks," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 348-369.
    18. Ola Andersson & Håkan J. Holm & Jean-Robert Tyran & Erik Wengström, 2016. "Deciding for Others Reduces Loss Aversion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(1), pages 29-36, January.
    19. Glenn W. Harrison & Andre Hofmeyr & Harold Kincaid & Brian Monroe & Don Ross & Mark Schneider & J. Todd Swarthout, 2022. "Subjective beliefs and economic preferences during the COVID-19 pandemic," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(3), pages 795-823, June.
    20. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. David RivenbarK, 2010. "Experimentally Elicited Beliefs Explain Privacy Behavior," Working Papers 2010-09, University of Central Florida, Department of Economics, revised Feb 2011.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    risk aversion; cognitive load; working memory; dual-system approach; multiple-system approach; dual-self model; drift-diffusion model; response times;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D87 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Neuroeconomics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:zbw:sfb649:sfb649dp2016-011. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sohubde.html .

    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.