Sebastian Horn, Thorsten Pachur, and I have a new paper out comparing children and young adults on value-based decisions from memory. We adapted a neat paradigm (see above for a rough depiction) that allows a good control of the information to be compared in memory and can give some insight in to potential differences between children of different ages and adults’ decisions requiring the comparison of gains and losses from memory. Our results suggest that children were somewhat less efficient in making such decisions due to developmental differences in both memory and aritmethic abilities. We believe this work illustrates how it is possible to assess the contribution of different core abilities (such as memory or arithmetic skill) to individual and age differences in decision making.  The abstract and full reference are given below.

Good + Bad = ? Developmental Differences in Balancing Gains and Losses in Value‐Based Decisions From Memory

Value‐based decisions often involve comparisons between benefits and costs that must be retrieved from memory. To investigate the development of value‐based decisions, 9‐ to 10‐year olds (N = 30), 11‐ to 12‐year olds (N = 30), and young adults (N = 30) first learned to associate gain and loss magnitudes with symbols. In a subsequent decision task, participants rapidly evaluated objects that consisted of combinations of these symbols. All age groups achieved high decision performance and were sensitive to gain–loss magnitudes, suggesting that required core cognitive abilities are developed early. A cognitive‐modeling analysis of performance revealed that children were less efficient in object evaluation (drift rate) and had longer nondecision times than adults. Developmental differences, which emerged particularly for objects of high positive net value, were linked to mnemonic and numerical abilities.

Horn, S. S., Mata, R., & Pachur, T. (2019). Good + Bad = ? Developmental Differences in Balancing Gains and Losses in Value-Based Decisions From Memory. Child Development, 107, 21767. http://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13208

Gestern wurde unser Aufsatz zur Kontextabhängigkeit erfahrungsbasierter Entscheidungen bei Psychological Review veröffentlicht. Dieses Manuskript ist eine Open-Access-Publikation und ist daher für alle unter http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rev0000122 frei zugänglich.

Zusammenfassung

Im Alltag treffen Menschen viele verschiedene Entscheidungen. Manche dieser Entscheidungen basieren auf expliziten Beschreibungen der verschiedenen Alternativen, wohingegen in anderen Fällen die Eigenschaften der Alternativen zunächst durch Erfahrungen mit diesen erlernt werden müssen. Eine der bemerkenswerten Beobachtungen in der Entscheidungsforschung ist die Kontextabhängigkeit von Entscheidungen, also dass Entscheidungen von den zur Verfügung stehenden Alternativen abhängen. Durch diese Kontextabhängigkeit entstehen eine Reihe von sogenannten Kontexteffekten, die Verletzungen der normativen Entscheidungstheorie darstellen. Es wird häufig angenommen, dass eine mehrdimensionale Repräsentation der Eigenschaften von Alternativen der Hauptgrund für die Entstehung von Kontexteffekten ist. In dem Manuskript entwickeln wir das accentuation-of-differences-Modell, das diese Annahme infrage stellt. Dieses Lernmodell nimmt an, dass keine explizite Repräsentation der Eigenschaften von Alternativen gebildet wird, sondern dass die Nützlichkeit von Alternativen eindimensional erlernt wird. Jedoch wird diese Repräsentation von Nützlichkeit kontextabhängig erlernt; Alternativen, deren Ausgänge über die Zeit ähnlich sind, werden als weniger attraktiv erachtet. Unser Modell sagt bestimmte Verhaltensmuster vorher, die durch andere Modelle nicht erklärt werden können. In einer Reihe von Experimenten zeigen wir, dass erfahrungsbasierte Entscheidungen kontextabhängig sind und dass das accentuation-of-differences-Modell das Verhalten am besten beschreiben kann.

Spektor, M. S., Gluth, S., Fontanesi, L., & Rieskamp, J. (2019). How similarity between choice options affects decisions from experience: The accentuation-of-differences model. Psychological Review, 126, 52-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rev0000122

Ralph Hertwig, Dirk Wulff, and I have a new paper out that identifies/summarizes three gaps that have emerged from recent work in economics and psychology on risk preference…

Three gaps and what they may mean for risk preference 

Risk preference is one of the most important building blocks of choice theories in the behavioural sciences. In economics, it is often conceptualized as preferences concerning the variance of monetary payoffs, whereas in psychology, risk preference is often thought to capture the propensity to engage in behaviour with the potential for loss or harm. Both concepts are associated with distinct measurement traditions: economics has traditionally relied on behavioural measures, while psychology has often relied on self-reports. We review three important gaps that have emerged from work stemming from these two measurement traditions: first, a description– experience gap which suggests that behavioural measures do not speak with one voice and can give very different views on an individual’s appetite for risk; second, a behaviour–self-report gap which suggests that different self-report measures, but not behavioural measures, show a high degree of convergent validity; and, third, a temporal stability gap which suggests that self-reports, but not behavioural measures, show considerable temporal stability across periods of years. Risk preference, when measured through self-reports—but not behavioural tests—appears as a moderately stable psychological trait with both general and domain-specific components. We argue that future work needs to address the gaps that have emerged from the two measurement traditions and test their differential predictive validity for important economic, health and well-being outcomes. 

Hertwig, R., Wulff, D. U., & Mata, R. (2019). Three gaps and what they may mean for risk preference. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 374(1766), 20180140–10. http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0140