scholarly journals Dynamic prospect theory - two core economic decision theories coexist in the gambling behavior of monkeys

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agnieszka Tymula ◽  
Yuri Imaizumi ◽  
Takashi Kawai ◽  
Jun Kunimatsu ◽  
Masayuki Matsumoto ◽  
...  

Research in behavioral economics and reinforcement learning has given rise to two influential theories describing human economic choice under uncertainty. The first, prospect theory, assumes that decision-makers use static mathematical functions, utility and probability weighting, to calculate the values of alternatives. The second, reinforcement learning theory, posits that dynamic mathematical functions update the values of alternatives based on experience through reward prediction error (RPE). To date, these theories have been examined in isolation without reference to one another. Therefore, it remains unclear whether RPE affects a decision-maker's utility and/or probability weighting functions, or whether these functions are indeed static as in prospect theory. Here, we propose a dynamic prospect theory model that combines prospect theory and RPE, and test this combined model using choice data on gambling behavior of captive macaques. We found that under standard prospect theory, monkeys, like humans, had a concave utility function. Unlike humans, monkeys exhibited a concave, rather than inverse-S shaped, probability weighting function. Our dynamic prospect theory model revealed that probability distortions, not the utility of rewards, solely and systematically varied with RPE: after a positive RPE, the estimated probability weighting functions became more concave, suggesting more optimistic belief about receiving rewards and over-weighted subjective probabilities at all probability levels. Thus, the probability perceptions in laboratory monkeys are not static even after extensive training, and are governed by a dynamic function well captured by the algorithmic feature of reinforcement learning. This novel evidence supports combining these two major theories to capture choice behavior under uncertainty.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anahit Mkrtchian ◽  
Vincent Valton ◽  
Jonathan P Roiser

Background: Computational models can offer mechanistic insight into cognition and therefore have the potential to transform our understanding of psychiatric disorders and their treatment. For translational efforts to be successful, it is imperative that computational measures capture individual characteristics reliably. To date, this issue has received little consideration. Methods: Here we examine the reliability of canonical reinforcement learning and economic models derived from two commonly used tasks. Healthy individuals (N=50) completed a restless four-armed bandit and a calibrated gambling task twice, two weeks apart. Results: Reward and punishment processing parameters from the reinforcement learning model showed fair-to-good reliability, while risk/loss aversion parameters from a prospect theory model exhibited good-to-excellent reliability. Both models were further able to predict future behaviour above chance within individuals. Conclusions: These results suggest that reinforcement learning, and particularly prospect theory measures, represent relatively reliable decision-making mechanisms, which are also unique across individuals, indicating the translational potential of clinically-relevant computational parameters for precision psychiatry.


2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (21) ◽  
pp. 15967-15977
Author(s):  
József Dombi ◽  
Tamás Jónás

Abstract In this study, we present a novel methodology that can be used to generate parametric probability weighting functions, which play an important role in behavioral economics, by making use of the Dombi modifier operator of continuous-valued logic. Namely, we will show that the modifier operator satisfies the requirements for a probability weighting function. Next, we will demonstrate that the application of the modifier operator can be treated as a general approach to create parametric probability weighting functions including the most important ones such as the Prelec and the Ostaszewski, Green and Myerson (Lattimore, Baker and Witte) probability weighting function families. Also, we will show that the asymptotic probability weighting function induced by the inverse of the so-called epsilon function is none other than the Prelec probability weighting function. Furthermore, we will prove that, by using the modifier operator, other probability weighting functions can be generated from the dual generator functions and from transformed generator functions. Finally, we will show how the modifier operator can be used to generate strictly convex (or concave) probability weighting functions and introduce a method for fitting a generated probability weighting function to empirical data.


Symmetry ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (10) ◽  
pp. 1928
Author(s):  
Yuan-Na Huang ◽  
Si-Chu Shen ◽  
Shu-Wen Yang ◽  
Yi Kuang ◽  
Yun-Xiao Li ◽  
...  

An asymmetrical property of the probability weighting function, namely, subproportionality, was derived from observations. Subproportionality can provide a reasonable explanation for accommodating the Allais paradox and, therefore, deserves replication for its high impact. The present study aimed to explore the mechanism of subproportionality by comparing the two completely opposite decision mechanisms: prospect theory and equate-to-differentiate theory. Results revealed that the underlying mechanism supports the prediction of equate-to-differentiate theory but not prospect theory in the diagnostic stimuli condition. Knowledge regarding which intra-dimensional difference between Options A and B is greater, not knowledge regarding which option’s overall prospect value is greater, indeed predicts option preference. Our findings may deepen current understanding on the mechanisms behind the simple risky choice with a single-non-zero outcome. Additionally, these findings will hopefully encourage subsequent researchers to take a fresh look at the Allais paradox.


Econometrica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 88 (4) ◽  
pp. 1363-1409
Author(s):  
B. Douglas Bernheim ◽  
Charles Sprenger

Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT), the leading behavioral account of decisionmaking under uncertainty, avoids the dominance violations implicit in Prospect Theory (PT) by assuming that the probability weight applied to a given outcome depends on its ranking. We devise a simple and direct nonparametric method for measuring the change in relative probability weights resulting from a change in payoff ranks. We find no evidence that these weights are even modestly sensitive to ranks. Conventional calibrations of CPT preferences imply that the percentage change in probability weights should be an order of magnitude larger than we observe. It follows either that probability weighting is not rank‐dependent, or that the weighting function is nearly linear. Nonparametric measurement of the change in relative probability weights resulting from changes in probabilities rules out the second possibility. Additional tests nevertheless indicate that the dominance patterns predicted by PT do not arise. We reconcile these findings by positing a form of complexity aversion that generalizes the well‐known certainty effect.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document