Brain–Behavior Associations for Risk Taking Depend on the Measures Used to Capture Individual Differences

Abstract

Maladaptive risk taking can have severe individual and societal consequences; thus, individual differences are prominent targets for intervention and prevention. Although brain activation has been shown to be associated with individual differences in risk taking, the directionality of the reported brain–behavior associations is less clear. Here, we argue that one aspect contributing to the mixed results is the low convergence between risk-taking measures, especially between the behavioral tasks used to elicit neural functional markers. To address this question, we analyzed within-participant neuroimaging data for two widely used risk-taking tasks collected from the imaging subsample of the Basel–Berlin Risk Study ( N = 116 young human adults). Focusing on core brain regions implicated in risk taking (nucleus accumbens, anterior insula, and anterior cingulate cortex), for the two tasks, we examined group-level activation for risky versus safe choices, as well as associations between local functional markers and various risk-related outcomes, including psychometrically derived risk preference factors. While we observed common group-level activation in the two tasks (notably increased nucleus accumbens activation), individual differences analyses support the idea that the presence and directionality of associations between brain activation and risk taking varies as a function of the risk-taking measures used to capture individual differences. Our results have methodological implications for the use of brain markers for intervention or prevention.

Representative design in psychological assessment: A case study using the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART).

“…Our primary goal was to test the extent to which adapting an existing task design, by making it more representative, would improve the task's psychometric properties. Such improvements are much needed in various areas of behavioral research (Frey et al, 2017;Lauriola et al, 2014;Lönnqvist et al, 2015;Millroth et al, 2020)-for instance, when investigating the functional neural architecture of risk taking in neuroimaging studies (e.g., Schonberg et al, 2011Schonberg et al, , 2012Tisdall et al, 2020). Hence, we reanalyzed data from three previous studies and, based on these findings, adapted the BART's stochastic structure by following the principle of formal sampling (Hammond, 1966).…”

“…Although such task-based assessments of revealed preferences have been considered the gold standard in some fields of psychology and economics (e.g., Beshears et al, 2008; Charness et al, 2013), recent evidence has highlighted substantial psychometric limitations of this measurement approach (e.g., Beauchamp et al, 2017; Berg et al, 2005; Eisenberg et al, 2019; Frey et al, 2017; Lönnqvist et al, 2015; Millroth et al, 2020). Valid and reliable alternatives do exist in the form of self-report measures (e.g., Arslan et al, 2020; Frey et al, 2017; Steiner et al, in press), yet behavioral tasks may continue to be indispensable for certain applications, such as in research on the functional neural architecture of risk taking, which typically rests on the simulation of risk-taking behaviors in the functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scanner (e.g., Helfinstein et al, 2014; Li et al, 2020; Rao et al, 2008; Schonberg et al, 2011; Tisdall et al, 2020). Moreover, incorporating both revealed and stated preferences in a multimethod approach may prove beneficial for understanding and predicting real-life behavior (e.g., Lejuez et al, 2002; Sharma et al, 2014; Wallsten et al, 2005).…”

“…The BART is one of the most prominent behavioral measures used to gauge individual differences in risk taking, often employed in behavioral decision research (e.g., Lauriola et al, 2014; Lejuez et al, 2002; Wallsten et al, 2005); in clinical settings (e.g., Bornovalova et al, 2005; Hopko et al, 2006; Hunt et al, 2005); as well as in applied contexts (e.g., Aklin et al, 2005; Lejuez, Aklin, Zvolensky, et al, 2003). For instance, the BART has been used to predict interindividual differences in substance use (e.g., Campbell et al, 2013; Hanson et al, 2014; Hopko et al, 2006; Lejuez, Aklin, Jones, et al, 2003); to study the neural architecture of risk-taking behaviors in imaging studies (e.g., Helfinstein et al, 2014; Li et al, 2020; Rao et al, 2008; Tisdall et al, 2020); and to examine the genetic underpinnings thereof (Mata et al, 2012).…”

“…Various psychological assessments are routinely performed by means of behavioral tasks, including the measurement and modeling of individual differences in risk taking (Frey et al, 2017(Frey et al, , 2020Lauriola et al, 2014;Lejuez, Aklin, Jones, et al, 2003;Mishra & Lalumière, 2011;Tisdall et al, 2020). Although such taskbased assessments of revealed preferences have been considered the gold standard in some fields of psychology and economics (e.g., Beshears et al, 2008;Charness et al, 2013), recent evidence has highlighted substantial psychometric limitations of this measurement approach (e.g., Beauchamp et al, 2017;Berg et al, 2005;Eisenberg et al, 2019;Frey et al, 2017;Lönnqvist et al, 2015;Millroth et al, 2020).…”

Background Uncertainty Can Increase Risk Aversion in Decision Making

“…It has been assumed that decision processes underlying the choices might differ depending on the task used (Mata et al, 2018;Tisdall et al, 2020). This fact may explain why some measures are more likely than others to be affected by background uncertainty.…”