Skip to main content
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 2001 Jul;76(1):1–19. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2001.76-1

Risk-sensitive choice in humans as a function of an earnings budget.

C J Pietras 1, T D Hackenberc 1
PMCID: PMC1285017  PMID: 11516113

Abstract

Risky choice in 3 adult humans was investigated across procedural manipulations designed to model energy-budget manipulations conducted with nonhumans. Subjects were presented with repeated choices between a fixed and a variable number of points. An energy budget was simulated by use of an earnings budget, defined as the number of points needed within a block of trials for points to be exchanged for money. During positive earnings-budget conditions, exclusive preference for the fixed option met the earnings requirement. During negative earnings-budget conditions, exclusive preference for the certain option did not meet the earnings requirement, but choice for the variable option met the requirement probabilistically. Choice was generally risk averse (the fixed option was preferred) when the earnings budget was positive and risk prone (the variable option was preferred) when the earnings budget was negative. Furthermore, choice was most risk prone during negative earnings-budget conditions in which the earnings requirement was most stringent. Local choice patterns were also frequently consistent with the predictions of a dynamic optimization model, indicating that choice was simultaneously sensitive to short-term choice contingencies, current point earnings, and the earnings requirement. Overall, these results show that the patterns of risky choice generated by energy-budget variables can also be produced by choice contingencies that do not involve immediate survival, and that risky choice in humans may be similar to that shown in nonhumans when choice is studied under analogous experimental conditions.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (247.5 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Hastjarjo T., Silberberg A., Hursh S. R. Risky choice as a function of amount and variance in food supply. J Exp Anal Behav. 1990 Jan;53(1):155–161. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1990.53-155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Houston A. I. Risk-sensitive foraging theory and operant psychology. J Exp Anal Behav. 1991 Nov;56(3):585–589. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1991.56-585. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ito M., Takatsuru S., Saeki D. Choice between constant and variable alternatives by rats: effects of different reinforcer amounts and energy budgets. J Exp Anal Behav. 2000 Jan;73(1):79–92. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2000.73-79. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Jacobs E. A., Hackenberg T. D. Humans' choices in situations of time-based diminishing returns: effects of fixed-interval duration and progressive-interval step size. J Exp Anal Behav. 1996 Jan;65(1):5–19. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1996.65-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Logue A. W., Peña-Correal T. E., Rodriguez M. L., Kabela E. Self-control in adult humans: variation in positive reinforcer amount and delay. J Exp Anal Behav. 1986 Sep;46(2):159–173. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1986.46-159. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. McNamara J. M., Houston A. I. A general framework for understanding the effects of variability and interruptions on foraging behaviour. Acta Biotheor. 1987;36(1):3–22. doi: 10.1007/BF00159228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Schneider S. L. Framing and conflict: aspiration level contingency, the status quo, and current theories of risky choice. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1992 Sep;18(5):1040–1057. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.18.5.1040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Silberberg A., Murray P., Christensen J., Asano T. Choice in the repeated-gambles experiment. J Exp Anal Behav. 1988 Sep;50(2):187–195. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1988.50-187. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Tversky A., Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981 Jan 30;211(4481):453–458. doi: 10.1126/science.7455683. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

RESOURCES