↓ Skip to main content

The Role of Risk Aversion in Non-Conscious Decision Making

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Role of Risk Aversion in Non-Conscious Decision Making
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00050
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shuo Wang, Ian Krajbich, Ralph Adolphs, Naotsugu Tsuchiya

Abstract

To what extent can people choose advantageously without knowing why they are making those choices? This hotly debated question has capitalized on the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), in which people often learn to choose advantageously without appearing to know why. However, because the IGT is unconstrained in many respects, this finding remains debated and other interpretations are possible (e.g., risk aversion, ambiguity aversion, limits of working memory, or insensitivity to reward/punishment can explain the finding of the IGT). Here we devised an improved variant of the IGT in which the deck-payoff contingency switches after subjects repeatedly choose from a good deck, offering the statistical power of repeated within-subject measures based on learning the reward contingencies associated with each deck. We found that participants exhibited low confidence in their choices, as probed with post-decision wagering, despite high accuracy in selecting advantageous decks in the task, which is putative evidence for non-conscious decision making. However, such a behavioral dissociation could also be explained by risk aversion, a tendency to avoid risky decisions under uncertainty. By explicitly measuring risk aversion for each individual, we predicted subjects' post-decision wagering using Bayesian modeling. We found that risk aversion indeed does play a role, but that it did not explain the entire effect. Moreover, independently measured risk aversion was uncorrelated with risk aversion exhibited during our version of the IGT, raising the possibility that the latter risk aversion may be non-conscious. Our findings support the idea that people can make optimal choices without being fully aware of the basis of their decision. We suggest that non-conscious decision making may be mediated by emotional feelings of risk that are based on mechanisms distinct from those that support cognitive assessment of risk.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Ghana 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 103 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 29%
Student > Master 16 14%
Researcher 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 16 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 40 36%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 5%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 20 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 May 2012.
All research outputs
#3,148,220
of 22,663,969 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#5,799
of 29,357 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,285
of 244,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#101
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,969 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,357 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 244,051 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 481 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.