Year: 2010
Type: dissertation
Abstract: The thesis compared the likelihood of taking risks in dyads and individuals in\nvarying situations. Patterns of risky decision making were examined in the standard risky\nchoice task and a novel risk management task. The relative successes of two theories of\nrisky decision making were assessed: Prospect Theory emphasizes perceptual and\npsychophysical processes, whereas Security-Potential/Aspiration Level Theory\nemphasizes dispositional and motivational processes. The thesis also examined dyads’\ndecision behavior in light of competing social influence perspectives regarding risky\nversus cautious shifts and group polarization.\nParticipants, as individuals or as part of a dyad, made decisions in 23 trials about\nhypothetical two-outcome monetary gambles in one of two different tasks. Risky choice\ninvolved making choices between two given 50-50 lotteries which varied in riskiness\n(i.e., outcome variability), whereas risk management required actively manipulating an\nexisting 50-50 risk by changing outcome values. The 23 trials were equivalent across\ntasks. Dyad participants communicated via an instant messenger program, while viewing\nthe same lotteries on different computers. Data on risk preferences across gain and loss\ndomains were analyzed using a mixed factorial ANOVA design.\nConsistent with Prospect Theory value function predictions, the risky choice task\nled to risk averse preferences for gains and risk seeking preferences for losses, though\nrisk seeking was weak. Consistent with SP/A theory predictions, the risk management\ntask led to overall risk averse preferences, with movement toward risk taking for gains.\nIn addition, there was some evidence of social influences in that dyads tended to be more\nconservative than individuals in their decision behavior when dealing with undesirable\noutcomes. Thus, a cautious shift was observed, but only for lotteries involving\nguaranteed losses. This could not be explained by group polarization.\n\nEach of the theories received some support, but none of them could explain all of\nthe findings. Recommendations were made to give greater attention to defining and\nmeasuring risk attitudes and dispositions, and to continue exploring differences in\ndecision situations and social settings to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of\nrisky decision making processes. Findings here suggest the need for an overarching\ntheory that can account for a wide variety of influences. A dual processes approach was\nrecommended as one promising avenue. Social and situational influences may prove an\nessential part of understanding risky decision making in real life contexts.
Author: Moumita Mukherjee
Institution: University of South Florida
Language: English
Subfield: General Decision Sciences
Field: Decision Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W2141690927