IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/natcom/v16y2025i1d10.1038_s41467-025-61609-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Experience-based risk taking is primarily shaped by prior learning rather than by decision-making

Author

Listed:
  • Alon Erdman

    (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

  • Arne Gouwy

    (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

  • Gal Sananes

    (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

  • Mayan Salman

    (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

  • Lior Eizenstien

    (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

  • Shimon Eliav

    (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

  • Eran Eldar

    (Hebrew University of Jerusalem
    Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

Abstract

The tendency to embrace or avoid risk varies across and within individuals, with significant consequences for economic behavior and mental health. Such variations can partially be explained by differences in the relative weights given to potential gains and losses. Applying this insight to real-life decisions, however, is complicated because such decisions are often based on prior learning experiences. Here, we ask which cognitive process—decision-making or learning—determines the weighting of gains or losses? Over 28 days, 100 participants engaged in a longitudinal decision task wherein choices were based on prior learning. Computational modeling of participants’ choices revealed that changes in risk-taking are primarily explained by changes in how learning, not decisions, weight gains and losses. Moreover, inferred changes in learning manifested in participants’ neural and physiological learning signals in response to outcomes. We conclude that in experience-based decisions, learning plays a primary role in governing risk-taking behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Alon Erdman & Arne Gouwy & Gal Sananes & Mayan Salman & Lior Eizenstien & Shimon Eliav & Eran Eldar, 2025. "Experience-based risk taking is primarily shaped by prior learning rather than by decision-making," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-15, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:16:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-025-61609-0
    DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-61609-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-61609-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41467-025-61609-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Brooks & Horst Zank, 2005. "Loss Averse Behavior," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 301-325, December.
    2. Carpenter, Bob & Gelman, Andrew & Hoffman, Matthew D. & Lee, Daniel & Goodrich, Ben & Betancourt, Michael & Brubaker, Marcus & Guo, Jiqiang & Li, Peter & Riddell, Allen, 2017. "Stan: A Probabilistic Programming Language," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 76(i01).
    3. Kelly A. Zalocusky & Charu Ramakrishnan & Talia N. Lerner & Thomas J. Davidson & Brian Knutson & Karl Deisseroth, 2016. "Nucleus accumbens D2R cells signal prior outcomes and control risky decision-making," Nature, Nature, vol. 531(7596), pages 642-646, March.
    4. Harry Markowitz, 1952. "The Utility of Wealth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60(2), pages 151-151.
    5. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang & Richard H. Thaler, 2006. "Individual Preferences, Monetary Gambles, and Stock Market Participation: A Case for Narrow Framing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(4), pages 1069-1090, September.
    6. Simon Gächter & Eric J. Johnson & Andreas Herrmann, 2022. "Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 599-624, April.
    7. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    8. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L’haridon & Dennie van Dolder, 2016. "Measuring Loss Aversion under Ambiguity: A Method to Make Prospect Theory Completely Observable," Post-Print halshs-01242616, HAL.
    10. Weber, Bethany J. & Chapman, Gretchen B., 2005. "Playing for peanuts: Why is risk seeking more common for low-stakes gambles?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 31-46, May.
    11. Colin W. Hoy & David R. Quiroga-Martinez & Eduardo Sandoval & David King-Stephens & Kenneth D. Laxer & Peter Weber & Jack J. Lin & Robert T. Knight, 2023. "Asymmetric coding of reward prediction errors in human insula and dorsomedial prefrontal cortex," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
    12. Will Dabney & Zeb Kurth-Nelson & Naoshige Uchida & Clara Kwon Starkweather & Demis Hassabis & Rémi Munos & Matthew Botvinick, 2020. "A distributional code for value in dopamine-based reinforcement learning," Nature, Nature, vol. 577(7792), pages 671-675, January.
    13. Jochen Michely & Eran Eldar & Ingrid M. Martin & Raymond J. Dolan, 2020. "A mechanistic account of serotonin’s impact on mood," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.
    14. Armando N. Meier, 2022. "Emotions and Risk Attitudes," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 527-558, July.
    15. Krzysztof Kontek & Michal Lewandowski, 2018. "Range-Dependent Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(6), pages 2812-2832, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:3:p:214-235 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Eyal Ert & Ido Erev, 2013. "On the descriptive value of loss aversion in decisions under risk: Six clarifications," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(3), pages 214-235, May.
    3. Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie Wang & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Loss Attitudes in the U.S. Population: Evidence from Dynamically Optimized Sequential Experimentation (DOSE)," NBER Working Papers 25072, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin, 2013. "The “bomb” risk elicitation task," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 31-65, August.
    5. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2021. "A simple non-parametric method for eliciting prospect theory's value function and measuring loss aversion under risk and ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 91(3), pages 403-416, October.
    6. Georgalos, Konstantinos & Paya, Ivan & Peel, David A., 2021. "On the contribution of the Markowitz model of utility to explain risky choice in experimental research," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 527-543.
    7. Astrid Gamba & Luca Stanca, 2023. "Mis-judging merit: the effects of adjudication errors in contests," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(3), pages 550-587, July.
    8. Crosetto, P. & Filippin, A., 2017. "Safe options induce gender differences in risk attitudes," Working Papers 2017-05, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    9. Ranoua Bouchouicha & Lachlan Deer & Ashraf Galal Eid & Peter McGee & Daniel Schoch & Hrvoje Stojic & Jolanda Ygosse-Battisti & Ferdinand M. Vieider, 2019. "Gender effects for loss aversion: Yes, no, maybe?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 171-184, October.
    10. Hwang, In Do, 2021. "Prospect theory and insurance demand: Empirical evidence on the role of loss aversion," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    11. Georgalos, Konstantinos, 2024. "Gender effects for loss aversion: A reconsideration," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    12. Ferdinand M. Vieider & Peter Martinsson & Pham Khanh Nam & Nghi Truong, 2019. "Risk preferences and development revisited," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(1), pages 1-21, February.
    13. Jochen Bigus, 2015. "Loss Aversion, Audit Risk Judgments, and Auditor Liability," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(3), pages 581-606, September.
    14. Horst Zank, 2010. "On probabilities and loss aversion," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 243-261, March.
    15. Peel, D.A. & Zhang, Jie, 2012. "On the potential for observational equivalence in experiments on risky choice when a power value function is assumed," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 116(1), pages 8-10.
    16. Zbozinek, Tomislav Damir & Charpentier, Caroline Juliette & Qi, Song & mobbs, dean, 2021. "Ambiguous Outcome Magnitude in Economic Decision Making with Low and High Monetary Stakes," OSF Preprints 5q4g7, Center for Open Science.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:1:p:81-89 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    19. Philip Bromiley, 2009. "A Prospect Theory Model of Resource Allocation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 124-138, September.
    20. Luís Santos-Pinto & Adrian Bruhin & José Mata & Thomas Åstebro, 2015. "Detecting heterogeneous risk attitudes with mixed gambles," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 573-600, December.
    21. Smith, Vernon L., 2005. "Behavioral economics research and the foundations of economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 135-150, March.
    22. Epper, Thomas & Fehr-Duda, Helga, 2017. "A Tale of Two Tails: On the Coexistence of Overweighting and Underweighting of Rare Extreme Events," Economics Working Paper Series 1705, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:16:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-025-61609-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.