The Science of Decision-making: Behaviours Related to Gambling

Fantino, Edmund; Navarro, Anton; O'Daly, Matthew

doi:10.1080/14459790500303311

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 85 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, there must be sufficient contrast between the fixed and mixed options so that the FR1 component of the mixed option is sufficiently salient. These results are consistent with Locey et al (2009) as well as studies with non-human participants (see Fantino, Navarro, and O'Daly, 2005 for a review) and also support the growing emphasis on the role of contextual variables in choice (e.g. Fantino, 2001; O'Daly, Meyer, and Fantino, 2005).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

The role of context in risky choice

Meyer¹,

Schley²,

Fantino³

2011

Behavioural Processes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human choice behavior was assessed in a concurrent-chains schedule, where two equal initial links (IL) each led to a distinct terminal-link (TL). One TL was associated with a fixed ratio schedule of reinforcement, while the other was associated with a bi-valued mixed ratio schedule of reinforcement, whose arithmetic mean equaled the Fixed TL schedule. The fixed component (FR50; FR25; FR5) was arranged to be equal to the alternative mixed component in each condition (FR1/99; FR1/49; FR1/9), and choice behavior was measured by proportion of responses to each IL. In addition, the IL duration varied across conditions (VI 30s; VI 15s; FI 1s). Preference for the mixed option was observed with longer durations (e.g. when IL = VI 30s and TL = FR1/99). Participants were relatively indifferent in other conditions, though the results suggested a monotonic increase in preference as either durations or programmed efforts increased. It is concluded that both choice and the conditioned reinforcement value of the mixed option are contextually based, so that the value of a stimulus correlated with an immediate reward (i.e. FR 1) is enhanced the greater the temporal context in which the FR1 is embedded.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

The role of context in risky choice

Meyer¹,

Schley²,

Fantino³

2011

Behavioural Processes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is intuitive and often correct to expect a negative effect of uncertainty (Bragger et al 1998;Camerer and Weber 1992;Duke, Goldsmith, and Amir 2018;Ellsberg 1961;Fantino, Navarro, and O'Daly 2005;Gneezy et al 2006;Massey and Wu 2005;von Neumann and Morgenstern 1947;Webb and Shu 2017), so whenever a positive uncertainty effect occurs, we naturally pause and ponder: What is happening? We conjecture that the answer lies in the types of decisions in which uncertainty occurs.…”

Section: Relationship With Other Positive Uncertainty Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Fun and Function of Uncertainty: Uncertain Incentives Reinforce Repetition Decisions

Shen

Hsee

Talloen

2018

Journal of Consumer Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research studies repetition decisions-namely, whether to repeat a behavior (e.g., a purchase) after receiving an incentive (e.g., a discount). Can uncertainty drive repetition? Four experiments, all involving real consequences for each individual participant, document a counterintuitive reinforcing-uncertainty effect: individuals repeat a behavior more if its incentive is uncertain than if it is certain, even when the certain incentive is financially better. This effect is robust; it holds in both lab and field settings and at both small and large magnitudes. Furthermore, the experiments identify two theory-driven boundary conditions for the reinforcing-uncertainty effect: the effect arises (a) only if the uncertainty is resolved immediately and not if the resolution of uncertainty is delayed, and (b) only after, not before, one has engaged in repetitions. These results support a resolution-as-reward account and cast doubt on other explanations such as reference-dependent preferences. This research reveals the hidden value of uncertain incentives and sheds light on the delicate relationship between incentive uncertainty and repetition decisions.

show abstract

“…The study of risky choice has developed into a multidisciplinary research domain, studied by psychologists, biologists, and economists, in both laboratory and field environments (Bateson & Kacelnik, 1998; Fantino & Romanowich, 2006; Kahneman & Tversky, 2000). In addition to its clear conceptual significance, risky choice has emerged in recent years as a promising laboratory model of gambling (Fantino, Navarro, & O'Daly, 2005; Potenza, 2009; Zentall, 2011). A better understanding of the basic mechanisms of risky choice is thus of theoretical as well as practical importance.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Risky Choice in Pigeons: Preference for Amount Variability Using a Token‐reinforcement System

Lagorio

Hackenberg

2012

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeons were given repeated choices between variable and fixed numbers of token reinforcers (stimulus lamps arrayed above the response keys), with each earned token exchangeable for food. The number of tokens provided by the fixed-amount option remained constant within blocks of sessions, but varied parametrically across phases, assuming values of 2, 4, 6, or 8 tokens per choice. The number of tokens provided by the variable-amount option varied between 0 and 12 tokens per choice, arranged according to an exponential or rectangular distribution. In general, the pigeons strongly preferred the variable option when the fixed option provided equal or greater numbers of tokens than the variable amount. Preference for the variable amount decreased only when the alternatives provided widely disparate amounts favoring the fixed amount. When tokens were removed from the experimental context, preference for the variable option was reduced or eliminated, suggesting that the token presentation played a key role in maintaining risk-prone choice patterns. Choice latencies varied inversely with preferences, suggesting that local analyses may provide useful ancillary measures of reinforcer value. Overall, the results indicate that systematic risk sensitivity can be attained with respect to reinforcer amount, and that tokens may be critical in the development of such preferences.

show abstract

The Science of Decision-making: Behaviours Related to Gambling

Cited by 11 publications

References 85 publications

The role of context in risky choice

The role of context in risky choice

The Fun and Function of Uncertainty: Uncertain Incentives Reinforce Repetition Decisions

Risky Choice in Pigeons: Preference for Amount Variability Using a Token‐reinforcement System

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About