Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

0 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Contextual framing effects on risk aversion assessed using the bomb risk elicitation task.

ABSTRACT: We examine the impact of framing on individuals' risk-taking behavior in the context of health risks during the coronavirus outbreak. We elicit risk attitudes from a sample of 3,385 individuals across seven European countries using an incentivized decision-making task. Participants are randomly assigned to one of three versions of the task: one involving the risk of a bomb explosion, one involving the risk of contracting an infectious disease, and one involving opening an empty box. We find that the framing of the task significantly affects risk-taking behavior, with participants exhibiting greater risk aversion in the health task than in the bomb or neutral task. This framing effect is observed in the majority of the countries studied.

SUBMITTER: Hermanns B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10281696 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Publications

Contextual framing effects on risk aversion assessed using the bomb risk elicitation task.

Hermanns Benedicta B Kokot Johanna J

Economics letters 20230620

We examine the impact of framing on individuals' risk-taking behavior in the context of health risks during the coronavirus outbreak. We elicit risk attitudes from a sample of 3,385 individuals across seven European countries using an incentivized decision-making task. Participants are randomly assigned to one of three versions of the task: one involving the risk of a bomb explosion, one involving the risk of contracting an infectious disease, and one involving opening an empty box. We find that ...[more]

PMID: 37362549

Similar Datasets

Age and Framing Effects in the Balloon Analogue Risk Task.

Project description:ObjectivesPrior research has documented age differences in risky decisions and indicates that they are susceptible to gain versus loss framing. However, previous studies focused on "decisions from description" that explicitly spell out the probabilities involved. The present study expands this literature by examining the effects of framing on age differences in the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART), a widely used and ecologically valid measure of experience-based risky decision making that involves pumping a virtual balloon.MethodsIn a preregistered study, younger (aged 18-30, n = 129) and older adults (aged 60 and older, n = 125) were randomly assigned to either a gain version of the BART, where pumping the balloon added monetary gains, or a loss version, where pumping the balloon avoided monetary losses.ResultsWe found a significant age by frame interaction on risk-taking: in the loss frame, older adults pumped more frequently and experienced more popped balloons than younger adults, whereas in the gain frame no significant age differences were found. Total performance on the BART did not vary by age or frame. Supplementary analyses indicated that age differences in pumping rates were most pronounced at the beginning of the BART and leveled off in subsequent trials. Controlling for age differences in motivation, personality, and cognition did not account for age differences in risk-taking.DiscussionIn combination, findings suggest that age differences in risk-taking on the BART are more pronounced when the task context emphasizes avoiding losses rather than achieving gains.

| S-EPMC9535780 | biostudies-literature

The effect of domain and framing on elicited risk aversion.

Project description:Experimental literature has found that risk attitudes are not robust to different elicitation techniques. However, most comparisons across elicitation methods involve different rewards and framings simultaneously. Our experimental design helps to disentangle the effect of these two factors. We consider two different personal rewards (money domain and grade domain) and two different scenarios while keeping the reward constant (lottery framing and exam framing). We find no differences in elicited risk aversion between the two domains. However, framing matters: elicited risk aversion is lower in the exam framing.

| S-EPMC9512169 | biostudies-literature

No group differences in Traditional Economics Measures of loss aversion and framing effects in bipolar I disorder.

Project description:Bipolar disorder (BD) is associated with impaired decision making, yet few studies have adopted paradigms from behavioral economics to decompose which, if any, aspects of decision making may be impacted. This may be particularly relevant for decision-making processes relevant to known difficulties with emotive dysfunction and corresponding reward dysregulation in BD. Participants with bipolar I disorder (BD; n = 44) and non-psychiatric healthy controls (CTL; n = 28) completed three well-validated behavioral economics decision making tasks via a remote-based survey, including loss aversion and framing effects, that examined sensitivity to probabilities and potential gains and losses in monetary and non-monetary domains. Consistent with past work, we found evidence of moderate loss aversion and framing effects across all participants. No group differences were found in any of the measures of loss aversion or framing effects. We report no group differences between bipolar and non-psychiatric groups with respect to loss aversion and framing effects using a remote-based survey approach. These results provide a framework future studies to explore similar tasks in clinical populations and suggest the context and degree to which decision making is altered in BD may be rooted in a more complex cognitive mechanism that warrants future research.

| S-EPMC8577741 | biostudies-literature

Binding of task-irrelevant contextual features in task switching.

Project description:Research in attention and action control produced substantial evidence suggesting the presence of feature binding. This study explores the binding of task-irrelevant context features in cued task switching. We predicted that repeating a context feature in trial n retrieves the trial n - 1 episode. Consequently, performance should improve when the retrieved features match the features of the current trial. Two experiments (N = 124; N = 96) employing different tasks and materials showed that repeating the task-irrelevant context improved performance when the task and the response repeated. Furthermore, repeating the task-irrelevant context increased task repetition benefits only when the context feature appeared synchronously with cue onset, but not when the context feature appeared with a 300-ms delay (Experiment 1). Similarly, repeating the task-irrelevant context improved performance when the task and the response repeated only when the context feature was part of the cue, and not when it was part of the target (Experiment 2). Taken together, binding and retrieval processes seem to play a crucial role in task switching, alongside response inhibition processes. In turn, our study provided a better understanding of binding and retrieval of task-irrelevant features in general, and specifically on how they modulate response repetition benefits in task repetitions.

| S-EPMC10350694 | biostudies-literature

Loss aversion, the endowment effect, and gain-loss framing shape preferences for noninstrumental information.

Project description:We often talk about interacting with information as we would with a physical good (e.g., "consuming content") and describe our attachment to personal beliefs in the same way as our attachment to personal belongings (e.g., "holding on to" or "letting go of" our beliefs). But do we in fact value information the way we do objects? The valuation of money and material goods has been extensively researched, but surprisingly few insights from this literature have been applied to the study of information valuation. This paper demonstrates that two fundamental features of how we value money and material goods embodied in Prospect Theory-loss aversion and different risk preferences for gains versus losses-also hold true for information, even when it has no material value. Study 1 establishes loss aversion for noninstrumental information by showing that people are less likely to choose a gamble when the same outcome is framed as a loss (rather than gain) of information. Study 2 shows that people exhibit the endowment effect for noninstrumental information, and so value information more, simply by virtue of "owning" it. Study 3 provides a conceptual replication of the classic "Asian Disease" gain-loss pattern of risk preferences, but with facts instead of human lives, thereby also documenting a gain-loss framing effect for noninstrumental information. These findings represent a critical step in building a theoretical analogy between information and objects, and provide a useful perspective on why we often resist changing (or losing) our beliefs.

| S-EPMC9407664 | biostudies-literature

Social disappointment explains chimpanzees' behaviour in the inequity aversion task.

Project description:Chimpanzees' refusal of less-preferred food when an experimenter has previously provided preferred food to a conspecific has been taken as evidence for a sense of fairness. Here, we present a novel hypothesis-the social disappointment hypothesis-according to which food refusals express chimpanzees' disappointment in the human experimenter for not rewarding them as well as they could have. We tested this hypothesis using a two-by-two design in which food was either distributed by an experimenter or a machine and with a partner present or absent. We found that chimpanzees were more likely to reject food when it was distributed by an experimenter rather than by a machine and that they were not more likely to do so when a partner was present. These results suggest that chimpanzees' refusal of less-preferred food stems from social disappointment in the experimenter and not from a sense of fairness.

| S-EPMC5577499 | biostudies-literature

Cumulative lifetime stressor exposure assessed by the STRAIN predicts economic ambiguity aversion.

Project description:Uncertainty is inherent in most decisions humans make. Economists distinguish between two types of decision-making under non-certain conditions: those involving risk (i.e., known outcome probabilities) and those that involve ambiguity (i.e., unknown outcome probabilities). Prior research has identified individual differences that explain risk preferences, but little is known about factors associated with ambiguity aversion. Here, we hypothesized that cumulative exposure to major psychosocial stressors over the lifespan might be one factor that predicts individuals' ambiguity aversion. Across two studies (Study 1: n = 58, Mage = 25.7; Study 2: n = 188, Mage = 39.81), we used a comprehensive lifetime stressor exposure inventory (i.e., the Stress and Adversity Inventory for Adults, or STRAIN) and a standard economic approach to quantify risk and ambiguity preferences. Greater lifetime stressor exposure as measured by the STRAIN, particularly in early life, was associated with higher aversion to ambiguity but not risk preferences.

| S-EPMC8967930 | biostudies-literature

Using Framing as a Lens to Understand Context Effects on Expert Reasoning.

Project description:National calls to transform undergraduate classrooms highlight the increasingly interdisciplinary nature of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). As biologists, we use principles from chemistry and physics to make sense of the natural world. One might assume that scientists, regardless of discipline, use similar principles, resources, and reasoning to explain crosscutting phenomena. However, the context of complex natural systems can profoundly impact the knowledge activated. In this study, we used the theoretical lens of framing to explore how experts from different disciplines reasoned about a crosscutting phenomenon. Using interviews conducted with faculty (n = 10) in biology, physics, and engineering, we used isomorphic tasks to explore the impact of item context features (i.e., blood or water) on how faculty framed and reasoned about fluid dynamics, a crosscutting concept. While faculty were internally consistent in their reasoning across prompts, biology experts framed fluid dynamics problems differently than experts in physics and engineering and, as a result, used different principles and resources to reach different conclusions. These results have several implications for undergraduate learners who encounter these cross-disciplinary topics in all of their STEM courses. If each curriculum expects students to develop different reasoning strategies, students may struggle to build a coherent, transferable understanding of crosscutting phenomena.

| S-EPMC8711834 | biostudies-literature

Enhanced Risk Aversion, But Not Loss Aversion, in Unmedicated Pathological Anxiety.

Project description:BackgroundAnxiety disorders are associated with disruptions in both emotional processing and decision making. As a result, anxious individuals often make decisions that favor harm avoidance. However, this bias could be driven by enhanced aversion to uncertainty about the decision outcome (e.g., risk) or aversion to negative outcomes (e.g., loss). Distinguishing between these possibilities may provide a better cognitive understanding of anxiety disorders and hence inform treatment strategies.MethodsTo address this question, unmedicated individuals with pathological anxiety (n = 25) and matched healthy control subjects (n = 23) completed a gambling task featuring a decision between a gamble and a safe (certain) option on every trial. Choices on one type of gamble-involving weighing a potential win against a potential loss (mixed)-could be driven by both loss and risk aversion, whereas choices on the other type-featuring only wins (gain only)-were exclusively driven by risk aversion. By fitting a computational prospect theory model to participants' choices, we were able to reliably estimate risk and loss aversion and their respective contribution to gambling decisions.ResultsRelative to healthy control subjects, pathologically anxious participants exhibited enhanced risk aversion but equivalent levels of loss aversion.ConclusionsIndividuals with pathological anxiety demonstrate clear avoidance biases in their decision making. These findings suggest that this may be driven by a reduced propensity to take risks rather than a stronger aversion to losses. This important clarification suggests that psychological interventions for anxiety should focus on reducing risk sensitivity rather than reducing sensitivity to negative outcomes per se.

| S-EPMC5466268 | biostudies-literature

The origin of risk aversion.

Project description:Risk aversion is one of the most basic assumptions of economic behavior, but few studies have addressed the question of where risk preferences come from and why they differ from one individual to the next. Here, we propose an evolutionary explanation for the origin of risk aversion. In the context of a simple binary-choice model, we show that risk aversion emerges by natural selection if reproductive risk is systematic (i.e., correlated across individuals in a given generation). In contrast, risk neutrality emerges if reproductive risk is idiosyncratic (i.e., uncorrelated across each given generation). More generally, our framework implies that the degree of risk aversion is determined by the stochastic nature of reproductive rates, and we show that different statistical properties lead to different utility functions. The simplicity and generality of our model suggest that these implications are primitive and cut across species, physiology, and genetic origins.

| S-EPMC4273387 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data