Trends in Cognitive Sciences
ReviewMind the gap: bridging economic and naturalistic risk-taking with cognitive neuroscience
Section snippets
Defining risk
When economists and clinical psychologists characterize behavior as ‘risky’, they use the same word but mean different things. Risk in the economics and finance literatures (e.g. [1]) is usually defined in terms of the variance of possible monetary outcomes, and risk seeking is defined as a preference for a higher variance payoff, holding expected value (EV) constant. By contrast, when clinicians and lay people identify behaviors as risky (e.g. drug use, unprotected-sex, or mountain climbing)
Neuroeconomics of risk perception and risk-taking
Since Knight [6], economists have distinguished decision under risk, in which the decision maker knows the objective probability distribution over possible outcomes, from decision under uncertainty, in which this information is assessed with some degree of vagueness (Box 3).
Early neuroimaging studies of risk relied largely on task paradigms (Table 1, Table 2) that manipulate variance in the probability distribution of reward, enabling the identification of neural responses associated with
Individual risk attitudes
A first step towards linking economic models to naturalistic risk-taking is to identify neural systems in which activity is correlated with individual differences in economic risk attitudes. Recent work has shown that many (but not all) of the brain areas that exhibit sensitivity to economic risk (i.e. variance in the probability distribution over possible outcomes) also reveal individual differences that co-vary with risk preferences. Tobler et al. [15] found positive associations between risk
Characterizing the components of naturalistic risk-taking behavior
The neuroeconomic perspective on risk-taking has begun to lay a foundation for understanding how the brain responds to risky monetary payoffs, but the question remains how to bridge the gap with risk-taking in situ. To do so, one first needs to characterize risk-taking in naturalistic environments. A popular inventory of such behaviors, the domain-specific risk-attitude scale (DOSPERT; [28]) identifies five domains of risk-taking (recreational, financial, health, social and ethical) that differ
Decomposing current naturalistic risk-taking tasks
Well-designed neuroeconomic tasks have been relatively decomposable (Table 2), but as discussed above, they often lack external validity. Two prominent behavioral paradigms have had unique success predicting naturalistic risk-taking behaviors. The first is the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), described in Table 1. The original study using this task showed that patients with vmPFC lesions who exhibited ‘real-life’ risky behaviors were impaired on the task [38] (for a recent fMRI study with healthy
Exhilaration and tension in naturalistic risk-taking
Despite the limitations of BART, it has appealing features. First, as discussed above, it predicts self-reported measures of naturalistic risk-taking reasonably well and distinguishes clinical populations. Second, it uses a familiar naturalistic metaphor that engenders a strong affective response (a sense of escalating tension and exhilaration) that mimics the affective phenomenological experience of risk-taking in naturalistic environments, which could partially explain its capacity to predict
Bridging the gap
To bridge the gap between economic models and naturalistic risk-taking behaviors, we suggest that the former models must incorporate both the positive and negative affective dimensions of risk-taking, through empirical paradigms that can capture them in more compelling ways. We thus propose three criteria for such new laboratory paradigms:(i) Decomposable: the tasks must allow for decomposition and analysis in terms of cognitive and economic primitives (e.g. magnitude of gains and losses, and
Concluding remarks
There is still a great distance to cover in bridging the gap between economic and naturalistic risk-taking, which we suggest will require development of new empirical paradigms. Many existing paradigms exhibit one or two of the three criteria suggested above. For instance, most tasks in the neuroeconomics literature are decomposable but are not especially predictively valid or emotionally engaging. By contrast, tasks in the naturalistic side of the divide, such as the BART and IGT, tend to be
Acknowledgments
We thank Eliza Congdon, Adriana Galvan, Liat Hadar, Brian Knutson, Elke Weber and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this article. This work was supported by the National Institues of Health (NIH RO1MH082795 to R.P.). T.S. would like to thank the United States-Israel Educational Foundation (Fulbright post-doctoral fellowship) for financial support.
References (95)
A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking
Dev. Rev.
(2008)Neural activity in the human brain relating to uncertainty and arousal during anticipation
Neuron
(2001)Increased activation in the right insula during risk-taking decision making is related to harm avoidance and neuroticism
Neuroimage
(2003)- et al.
The neural basis of financial risk taking
Neuron
(2005) Neural differentiation of expected reward and risk in human subcortical structures
Neuron
(2006)Inhibition and the right inferior frontal cortex
Trends Cogn. Sci.
(2004)Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex
Cognition
(1994)The somatic marker hypothesis: a critical evaluation
Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.
(2006)Evaluation of the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) as a predictor of adolescent real-world risk-taking behaviours
J. Adolesc.
(2003)Risk-taking propensity and risky sexual behavior of individuals in residential substance use treatment
Addict. Behav.
(2004)
Evaluation of behavioral measures of risk taking propensity with inner city adolescents
Behav. Res. Ther.
Neural correlates of voluntary and involuntary risk taking in the human brain: an fMRI Study of the Balloon Analog Risk Task (BART)
Neuroimage
Gambling near-misses enhance motivation to gamble and recruit win-related brain circuitry
Neuron
Anterior cingulate activity modulates nonlinear decision weight function of uncertain prospects
Neuroimage
Nonlinear neurobiological probability weighting functions for aversive outcomes
Neuroimage
A theory of risk
J. Math. Psychol.
Risk-value models
Eur. J. Oper. Res.
Ambiguity aversion, comparative ignorance, and decision context
Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.
Neural signatures of economic preferences for risk and ambiguity
Neuron
The description-experience gap in risky choice
Trends Cogn. Sci.
Separate neural mechanisms underlie choices and strategic preferences in risky decision making
Neuron
Portfolio selection
J. Finance
Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking
Manage. Sci.
Perception of risk
Science
Neuroeconomics: Decision Making and the Brain
Risk, Uncertainty and Profit
Choosing between small, likely rewards and large, unlikely rewards activates inferior and orbital prefrontal cortex
J. Neurosci.
Discrete coding of reward probability and uncertainty by dopamine neurons
Science
Dopamine, uncertainty and TD learning
Behav. Brain Funct.
Human insula activation reflects risk prediction errors as well as risk
J. Neurosci.
Reward value coding distinct from risk attitude-related uncertainty coding in human reward systems
J. Neurophysiol.
Risk-dependent reward value signal in human prefrontal cortex
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
Functional dissociations of risk and reward processing in the medial prefrontal cortex
Cereb. Cortex
Neural correlates of value, risk, and risk aversion contributing to decision making under risk
J. Neurosci.
Neural processing of risk
J. Neurosci.
Self-control in decision-making involves modulation of the vmPFC valuation system
Science
Disruption of right prefrontal cortex by low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation induces risk-taking behavior
J. Neurosci.
Diminishing risk-taking behavior by modulating activity in the prefrontal cortex: a direct current stimulation study
J. Neurosci.
Assessing the construct validity of risk attitude
Manage. Sci.
Direct evidence on risk attitudes and migration
Rev. Econ. Stat.
Risk preference and employment contract type
J. R. Stat. Soc. A
Domain specificity in experimental measures and participant recruitment
Psychol. Sci.
A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors
J. Behav. Decis. Making
Rational choice and the framing of decisions
J. Bus.
Communicating asset risk: how name recognition and the format of historic volatility information affect risk perception and investment decisions
Risk Anal.
Mistaken identity
Psychol. Sci.
The causes of preference reversal
Am. Econ. Rev.
Cited by (248)
Coping efficacy is associated with the domain specificity in risk-taking behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic
2022, International Journal of Disaster Risk ReductionDecision-making under risk and ambiguity in adults with Tourette syndrome
2023, Psychological MedicineThe genetic architecture of youth anxiety: a study protocol
2024, BMC Psychiatry