4.4 Article

Emotion and Decision-Making Under Uncertainty: Physiological Arousal Predicts Increased Gambling During Ambiguity but Not Risk

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-GENERAL
卷 145, 期 10, 页码 1255-1262

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/xge0000205

关键词

decisions of uncertainty; emotional arousal response; risk and ambiguity; skin conductance response

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [R01AG039283]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Uncertainty, which is ubiquitous in decision-making, can be fractionated into known probabilities (risk) and unknown probabilities (ambiguity). Although research has illustrated that individuals more often avoid decisions associated with ambiguity compared to risk, it remains unclear why ambiguity is perceived as more aversive. Here we examine the role of arousal in shaping the representation of value and subsequent choice under risky and ambiguous decisions. To investigate the relationship between arousal and decisions of uncertainty, we measure skin conductance response-a quantifiable measure reflecting sympathetic nervous system arousal-during choices to gamble under risk and ambiguity. To quantify the discrete influences of risk and ambiguity sensitivity and the subjective value of each option under consideration, we model fluctuating uncertainty, as well as the amount of money that can be gained by taking the gamble. Results reveal that although arousal tracks the subjective value of a lottery regardless of uncertainty type, arousal differentially contributes to the computation of value-that is, choice-depending on whether the uncertainty is risky or ambiguous: Enhanced arousal adaptively decreases risk-taking only when the lottery is highly risky but increases risk-taking when the probability of winning is ambiguous (even after controlling for subjective value). Together, this suggests that the role of arousal during decisions of uncertainty is modulatory and highly dependent on the context in which the decision is framed.

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

4.4
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