4.5 Article

Value-based decision-making battery: A Bayesian adaptive approach to assess impulsive and risky behavior

期刊

BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS
卷 50, 期 1, 页码 236-249

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.3758/s13428-017-0866-x

关键词

Delay discounting; Risk seeking; Intertemporal choice; Loss aversion; Bayesian estimation

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [DFG FOR 1617, RA 1047/2-1, SM 80/7-1, SM 80/7-2, DFG SPP 1226, SM 80/5-2, DFG SFB 940/1, SFB 940/2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using simple mathematical models of choice behavior, we present a Bayesian adaptive algorithm to assess measures of impulsive and risky decision making. Practically, these measures are characterized by discounting rates and are used to classify individuals or population groups, to distinguish unhealthy behavior, and to predict developmental courses. However, a constant demand for improved tools to assess these constructs remains unanswered. The algorithm is based on trial-by-trial observations. At each step, a choice is made between immediate (certain) and delayed (risky) options. Then the current parameter estimates are updated by the likelihood of observing the choice, and the next offers are provided from the indifference point, so that they will acquire the most informative data based on the current parameter estimates. The procedure continues for a certain number of trials in order to reach a stable estimation. The algorithm is discussed in detail for the delay discounting case, and results from decision making under risk for gains, losses, and mixed prospects are also provided. Simulated experiments using prescribed parameter values were performed to justify the algorithm in terms of the reproducibility of its parameters for individual assessments, and to test the reliability of the estimation procedure in a group-level analysis. The algorithm was implemented as an experimental battery to measure temporal and probability discounting rates together with loss aversion, and was tested on a healthy participant sample.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据