scholarly journals Losing my loss aversion: The effects of current and past environment on the relative sensitivity to losses and gains

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 1333-1340
Author(s):  
Tim Rakow ◽  
Nga Yiu Cheung ◽  
Camilla Restelli

AbstractIt is often assumed that most people are loss averse, placing more weight on losses than commensurate gains; however, some research identifies variability in loss sensitivity that reflects features of the environment. We examined this plasticity in loss sensitivity by manipulating the size and distribution of possible outcomes in a set of mixed gambles, and assessing individual stability in loss sensitivity. In each of two sessions, participants made accept-reject decisions for 64 mixed-outcome gambles. Participants were randomly assigned to conditions defined by the relative range of losses and gains (wider range of losses vs. wider range of gains), and the currency-units at stake (‘pennies’ vs. ‘pounds’). Participants showed modest but non-trivial consistency in their sensitivity to losses; though loss sensitivity also varied substantially with our manipulations. When possible gains had greater range than possible losses, most participants were loss averse; however, when possible losses had the greater range, reverse loss aversion was the norm (i.e., more weight on gains than losses). This is consistent with decision-by-sampling theory, whereby an outcome’s rank within a consideration-set determines its value, but can also be explained by the gamble’s expected-value rank within the decision-set, or by adapting aspirations to the decision-environment. Loss aversion was also reduced in the second session of decisions when the stakes had been higher in the previous session. This illustrates the influence of prior context on current sensitivity to losses, and suggests a role for idiosyncratic experiences in the development of individual differences in loss sensitivity.

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yariv Cohen ◽  
Eric J. Johnson ◽  
Jayanth Narayanan ◽  
Elke Weber

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thorsten Pachur ◽  
Michael Schulte-Mecklenbeck

There is a disconnect in the literature between analyses of risky choice based on cumulativeprospect theory (CPT) and work on predecisional information processing. One likely reason is that for expectation models (e.g., CPT) it is often assumed that people only behaved as if they conducted the computations leading to the predicted choice, and that the models are thus mute with regard to information processing. We suggest that key psychological constructs in CPT, such as loss aversion and outcome and probability sensitivity, can be interpreted in terms of attention allocation. In two experiments, we tested hypotheses about specific links between CPT parameters and attentional regularities. Experiment 1 used process tracing to monitor participants’ predecisional attention allocation to outcome and probability information. As hypothesized, individual differences in CPT’s loss-aversion, outcome-sensitivity, and probability-sensitivity parameters (estimated from participants’ choices) were systematically associated with individual differences in attention allocation to outcome and probability information. For instance, loss aversion was associated with the relative attention allocated to loss and gain outcomes, and a more strongly curved weighting function was associated with less attention allocated to probabilities. Experiment 2 manipulated participants’ attention to losses or gains, causing systematic differences in CPT’s loss aversion parameter. This result indicates that attention allocation can to some extent cause choice regularities that are captured by CPT. Our findings demonstrate an “as-if” model’s capacity to reflect characteristics of information processing. We suggest that the observed CPT–attention links can be harnessed to inform the development of process models of risky choice.


2016 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 471-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher J. Boyce ◽  
Alex M. Wood ◽  
Eamonn Ferguson

2018 ◽  
Vol 121 ◽  
pp. 206-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Éilish Duke ◽  
Robert Schnuerch ◽  
Gesine Heeren ◽  
Martin Reuter ◽  
Christian Montag ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 654-659 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kendra L. Seaman ◽  
Mikella A. Green ◽  
Stephen Shu ◽  
Gregory R. Samanez-Larkin

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matt Field ◽  
Lee Hogarth

Behavioural economic theories of addiction contend that greater expected value of drug relative to alternative non-drug rewards is the core mechanism underpinning vulnerability to and recovery from addiction. To evaluate this claim, we exhaustively review studies with human drug users that have measured concurrent choice between drugs vs. alternative rewards, and explored individual differences. These studies show that drug choice can be modulated by drug cues, drug devaluation, imposition of costs/punishment and negative mood induction. Regarding individual differences, dependence severity was reliably associated with overall drug preference, and self-reported drug use to cope with negative affect was reliably associated with greater sensitivity to mood induced increases in drug choice. By contrast, there were no reliable individual differences in sensitivity to the effect of drug cues, drug devaluation or punishment on drug choice. These findings provide insight into the mechanisms that underpin vulnerability to dependence: vulnerability is conferred by greater relative value ascribed to drugs, and relative drug value is further augmented by negative affective states in those who report drug use coping motives. However, dependence does not appear to be characterised by abnormal cue-reactivity, habit learning or compulsion. We then briefly review emerging literature which demonstrates that therapeutic interventions and recovery from addiction might be attributed to changes in the expected relative value of drug versus alternative rewards. Finally, we outline a speculative computational account of the distortions in decision-making that precede action selection in addiction, and we explain how this account provides a blueprint for future research on the determinants of drug choice, and mechanisms of treatment and recovery from addiction. We conclude that a unified economic decision-making account of addiction has great promise in reconciling diverse addiction theories, and neuropsychological evaluation of the underlying decision mechanisms is a fruitful area for future research and treatment.


2013 ◽  
Vol 33 (36) ◽  
pp. 14307-14317 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Canessa ◽  
C. Crespi ◽  
M. Motterlini ◽  
G. Baud-Bovy ◽  
G. Chierchia ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document