Risky effort

IF 2.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Cognition Pub Date : 2024-07-20 DOI:10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105895
Alice Mason , Yongming Sun , Nick Simonsen , Christopher R. Madan , Marcia L. Spetch , Elliot A. Ludvig
{"title":"Risky effort","authors":"Alice Mason ,&nbsp;Yongming Sun ,&nbsp;Nick Simonsen ,&nbsp;Christopher R. Madan ,&nbsp;Marcia L. Spetch ,&nbsp;Elliot A. Ludvig","doi":"10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105895","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Decision-making involves weighing up the outcome likelihood, potential rewards, and effort needed. Previous research has focused on the trade-offs between risk and reward or between effort and reward. Here we bridge this gap and examine how risk in effort levels influences choice. We focus on how two key properties of choice influence risk preferences for effort: changes in magnitude and probability. Two experiments assessed people's risk attitudes for effort, and an additional experiment provided a control condition using monetary gambles. The extent to which people valued effort was related to their pattern of risk preferences. Unlike with monetary outcomes, however, there was substantial heterogeneity in effort-based risk preferences: People who responded to effort as costly exhibited a “flipped” interaction pattern of risk preferences. The direction of the pattern depended on whether people treated effort as a loss of resources. Most, but not all, people treat effort as a loss and are more willing to take risks to avoid potentially high levels of effort.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48455,"journal":{"name":"Cognition","volume":"251 ","pages":"Article 105895"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027724001811/pdfft?md5=9522da9b374442c14110aa993beff1a9&pid=1-s2.0-S0010027724001811-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027724001811","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Decision-making involves weighing up the outcome likelihood, potential rewards, and effort needed. Previous research has focused on the trade-offs between risk and reward or between effort and reward. Here we bridge this gap and examine how risk in effort levels influences choice. We focus on how two key properties of choice influence risk preferences for effort: changes in magnitude and probability. Two experiments assessed people's risk attitudes for effort, and an additional experiment provided a control condition using monetary gambles. The extent to which people valued effort was related to their pattern of risk preferences. Unlike with monetary outcomes, however, there was substantial heterogeneity in effort-based risk preferences: People who responded to effort as costly exhibited a “flipped” interaction pattern of risk preferences. The direction of the pattern depended on whether people treated effort as a loss of resources. Most, but not all, people treat effort as a loss and are more willing to take risks to avoid potentially high levels of effort.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
有风险的努力
决策涉及权衡结果的可能性、潜在回报和所需付出的努力。以往的研究主要集中在风险与回报或努力与回报之间的权衡。在这里,我们弥补了这一空白,并研究了努力水平的风险如何影响选择。我们关注选择的两个关键属性如何影响努力的风险偏好:幅度和概率的变化。有两个实验评估了人们对努力的风险态度,还有一个实验提供了一个使用货币赌博的对照条件。人们对努力的重视程度与他们的风险偏好模式有关。然而,与货币结果不同的是,基于努力的风险偏好存在很大的异质性:认为付出代价高的人表现出一种 "翻转的 "风险偏好互动模式。这种模式的方向取决于人们是否将努力视为一种资源损失。大多数人,但不是所有人,都把努力视为一种损失,并且更愿意承担风险,以避免潜在的高水平努力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cognition
Cognition PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
283
期刊介绍: Cognition is an international journal that publishes theoretical and experimental papers on the study of the mind. It covers a wide variety of subjects concerning all the different aspects of cognition, ranging from biological and experimental studies to formal analysis. Contributions from the fields of psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, computer science, mathematics, ethology and philosophy are welcome in this journal provided that they have some bearing on the functioning of the mind. In addition, the journal serves as a forum for discussion of social and political aspects of cognitive science.
期刊最新文献
The role of exceptions in children's and adults' judgments about generic statements. Partisan language in a polarized world: In-group language provides reputational benefits to speakers while polarizing audiences. What's left of the leftward bias in scene viewing? Lateral asymmetries in information processing during early search guidance. Language enables the acquisition of distinct sensorimotor memories for speech. Morality on the road: Should machine drivers be more utilitarian than human drivers?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1