To Take Risk is to Face Loss: A Tonic Pupillometry Study

Abstract

The construct of risk taking is studied through the prism of the relation between tonic arousal and risk taking behavior. Several theories have proposed that high aroused individuals tend to exhibit risk aversion. We posit that this arousal–behavior association is activated much more strongly in risks with losses, as losses increase arousal and trigger relevant traits associated with the sensitivity to risk. In three studies we examined risk taking in experience-based decision tasks, with either token losses or relative-losses (in the gain domain). In Study 1 we found a negative correlation between pre-task pupil diameter and risk taking in the loss domain but not in the gain domain. In Study 2 we re-analyzed a previous pupillometry dataset involving symmetric mixed gains and losses. We found that the negative correlation in this mixed condition emerged even while the participants did not show loss aversion. This finding was replicated in Study 3. Thus, the effect of losses on arousal provides sufficient conditions for the moderation of the tonic arousal–behavior association. The findings suggest an important role for losses in the psychological and physiological experience of risk.

Using pupillometry to investigate predictive processes in infancy

“…Tonic mode is analogous to pupil measurements that are collected continuously over a longer period of time (most of the time as a baseline measurement). For adults, tonic pupil size or baseline pupil size has been measured to study intelligence (Tsukahara, Harrison, & Engle, 2016), risk-taking behavior (Yechiam & Telpaz, 2011), motivation (Wykowska, Anderl, Schubö, & Hommel, 2013) and control state (Gilzenrat, Nieuwenhuis, Jepma, & Cohen, 2010), but overall, is measured less than phasic pupil size (Laeng et al, 2012). For younger populations, tonic pupil size has been used to investigate autistic spectrum disorder (Blaser, Eglington, Carter, & Kaldy, 2014), social cognition (Anderson, Colombo, & Jill Shaddy, 2006), emotion (Geangu, Hauf, Bhardwaj, & Bentz, 2011), and motivation (Hepach, Vaish, & Tomasello, 2012;Hepach, Vaish, & Tomasello, 2013).…”

Toward a general theoretical framework for judgment and decision-making

“…In the decision making domain, a recent line of research has been trying to shed light on the boundaries of some well-known phenomena documented in previous literature. This is the case of the recent discussions about the robustness and generality of loss aversion provided by, for example, Ert and Erev ( 2008 , 2013 ) and Yechiam and Hochman ( 2014 ) 7 ; the conditions for underweighting of rare events (e.g., Rakow et al, 2008 ); or the construct of risk taking by Yechiam and Telpaz ( 2011 , 2013 ).…”

Self‐Control Moderates Decision‐Making Behavior When Minimizing Losses versus Maximizing Gains

“…Consistent with behavioral evidence for loss aversion, recent neuroeconomics findings have shown that losses elicit greater event-related brain potentials (Gehring & Willoughby, 2002), skin conductance responses (Sokol-Hessner et al, 2009), increased heart rate and pupil dilation (Hochman & Yechiam, 2011), and activation in several brain regions (ventral striatum, amygdala, medial prefrontal cortex; Rutledge & Glimcher, 2009) than equivalent gains. However, some studies have discovered some situations where behavioral loss aversion does not appear (Hochman & Yechiam, 2011;Koritzky & Yechiam, 2010;Novemsky & Kahneman, 2005;Yechiam & Ert, 2011; for a review, see Yechiam & Hochman, 2013), although other studies have found evidence for increased arousal following losses, relative to gains, even when there is no evidence for behavioral loss aversion (Gehring & Willoughby, 2002;Hochman, Glöckner, & Yechiam, 2010;Hochman & Yechiam, 2011;Yechiam & Telpaz, 2011). Together, although recent work suggests that behavioral loss aversion is not universal, there is an extensive body of work that suggests a distinct role for losses compared with gains.…”