Determinants of Risk Taking in a Dynamic Uncertain Context

Slattery, Jeffrey P.

doi:10.1016/s0149-2063(01)00128-3

Cited by 10 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Individuals tend to be risk-averse when choosing between a certain and uncertain gain, and risk-prone when choosing between a certain and uncertain loss (e.g., Kahneman & Tversky, 1979); this behavior may be affected by previous outcomes (see Hollenbeck et al, 1994; Marsh & Kacelnik, 2002; Slattery & Ganster, 2002; Thaler & Johnson, 1990), such that small versus large outcomes may differentially affect subsequent choices. In the present study, there were no differences following either C-S and C-L outcomes or U-S and U-L outcomes across different probabilities of food in the static (Figures 2 and 3) and dynamic phases (see Figure 5).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, choice was affected by the relative amount of reinforcement that could be earned (or lost). Humans have also been shown to be affected by whether or not they were informed of a previous gain or loss before making a choice between a certain and an uncertain outcome (Thaler & Johnson, 1990; also see Hollenbeck, Ilgen, Phillips, & Hedlund, 1994; Slattery & Ganster, 2002). These results suggest that previous outcomes in a sequential-choice paradigm may very well produce a dynamic framing effect from trial to trial.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effects of the previous outcome on probabilistic choice in rats.

Marshall¹,

Kirkpatrick²

2013

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the effects of previous outcomes on subsequent choices in a probabilistic-choice task. Twenty-four rats were trained to choose between a certain outcome (1 or 3 pellets) versus an uncertain outcome (3 or 9 pellets), delivered with a probability of .1, .33, .67, and .9 in different phases. Uncertain outcome choices increased with the probability of uncertain food. Additionally, uncertain choices increased with the probability of uncertain food following both certain-choice outcomes and unrewarded uncertain choices. However, following uncertain-choice food outcomes, there was a tendency to choose the uncertain outcome in all cases, indicating that the rats continued to “gamble” after successful uncertain choices, regardless of the overall probability or magnitude of food. A subsequent manipulation, in which the probability of uncertain food varied within each session as a function of the previous uncertain outcome, examined how the previous outcome and probability of uncertain food affected choice in a dynamic environment. Uncertain-choice behavior increased with the probability of uncertain food. The rats exhibited increased sensitivity to probability changes and a greater degree of win–stay/lose–shift behavior than in the static phase. Simulations of two sequential choice models were performed to explore the possible mechanisms of reward value computations. The simulation results supported an exponentially decaying value function that updated as a function of trial (rather than time). These results emphasize the importance of analyzing global and local factors in choice behavior and suggest avenues for the future development of sequential-choice models.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of the previous outcome on probabilistic choice in rats.

Marshall¹,

Kirkpatrick²

2013

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The primary finding of this research is that those higher in risk propensity and sensation seeking are more likely to make risky decisions (e.g. Harris, 2001;Horvath and Zuckerman, 1993;Sitkin and Weingart, 1995;Slattery and Ganster, 2002;Wong and Carducci, 1991;Weber, Blais and Betz, 2002;Zuckerman and Kuhlman, 2000). Although the most robust findings have been found for risky choice, a limited number of studies have also investigated the impact of risk preference on information processing (McDougal, 1995;Taylor and Dunnette, 1974).…”

Section: Risk-taking Propensity/preference and Sensation Seekingmentioning

confidence: 91%

Individual Differences and Decision Making: What We Know and Where We Go from Here

Mohammed

Schwall

2009

International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For example, evidence suggests the possibility of stable cross-situational risk preferences as a personality trait (Weber and Milliman, 1997) and that these dispositional measures explained at least some of the variance in individual choices between risky courses of action (Slattery and Ganster 2002). Specific risk tolerance is described as a dispositional tendency to take or avoid risks in a specific situation, which is different from general risk tolerance where people exhibit stable preferences over a variety of situations.…”

Section: Consumer Tolerance Of Food Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

How message framing affects consumer attitudes in food crises

Mitchell

Bakewell

Jackson

et al. 2015

British Food Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Article Title; How message framing affects consumer attitudes in food crises. Permanent repository link Structured AbstractPurpose; This study explores the relationship between consumer risk perceptions and behaviour when information about food risks is framed in a positive or negative way.Design/methodology/approach; Using food consumption scenarios in an on-line experiment consumers perceived risk and risk tolerance is examined when messages are framed in three different news-type stories.Findings; As anticipated, message framing emerged as a significant predictor of perceived risk and the higher an individual's self-reported tolerance of risk, the more risk they were willing to accept.Research limitations/implications; The use of hypothetical scenarios and relatively small convenience sample size could be improved by further research.Practical implications; Through simple adjustments to wording, food crises of confidence may be reduced and the implications for communication management strategies are discussed.Originality/value; Originality stems from being one of the first papers to use Framing and Prospect Theory in a food crisis situation, in which both risk and framing are operationalised in different ways and the risk was not specified by the researcher. Also, unlike previous research identical numerical facts were framed in a positive, negative or neutral light by changing the wording.

show abstract

Determinants of Risk Taking in a Dynamic Uncertain Context

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

The effects of the previous outcome on probabilistic choice in rats.

The effects of the previous outcome on probabilistic choice in rats.

Individual Differences and Decision Making: What We Know and Where We Go from Here

How message framing affects consumer attitudes in food crises

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About