IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/liv/livedp/202316.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Systematic comparison of risky choices in humans and monkeys

Author

Listed:
  • Leo Chi U Seak
  • Simone Ferrari-Toniolo
  • Ritesh Jain
  • Kirby Nielsen
  • Wolfram Schultz

Abstract

The past decades have seen tremendous progress in fundamental studies on economic choice in humans. However, elucidation of the underlying neuronal processes requires invasive neurophysiological studies that are met with difficulties in humans. Monkeys as evolutionary closest relatives offer a solution. The animals display sophisticated and well-controllable behavior that allows to implement key constructs of proven economic choice theories. However, the similarity of economic choice between the two species has never been systematically investigated. We investigated compliance with the independence axiom (IA) of expected utility theory as one of the most demanding choice tests and compared IA violations between humans and monkeys. Using generalized linear modeling and cumulative prospect theory (CPT), we found that humans and monkeys made comparable risky choices, although their subjective values (utilities) differed. These results suggest similar fundamental choice mechanism across these primate species and encourage to study their underlying neurophysiological mechanisms.

Suggested Citation

  • Leo Chi U Seak & Simone Ferrari-Toniolo & Ritesh Jain & Kirby Nielsen & Wolfram Schultz, 2023. "Systematic comparison of risky choices in humans and monkeys," Working Papers 202316, University of Liverpool, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:liv:livedp:202316
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/media/livacuk/schoolofmanagement/docs/ECON,WP,202316,full.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2023
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Drazen Prelec & George Loewenstein, 1991. "Decision Making Over Time and Under Uncertainty: A Common Approach," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(7), pages 770-786, July.
    2. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    3. Léon Tremblay & Wolfram Schultz, 1999. "Relative reward preference in primate orbitofrontal cortex," Nature, Nature, vol. 398(6729), pages 704-708, April.
    4. Kirby Nielsen & John Rehbeck, 2022. "When Choices Are Mistakes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(7), pages 2237-2268, July.
    5. Yaron Azrieli & Christopher P. Chambers & Paul J. Healy, 2020. "Incentives in experiments with objective lotteries," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(1), pages 1-29, March.
    6. Simone Ferrari-Toniolo & Leo Chi U. Seak & Wolfram Schultz, 2022. "Risky choice: Probability weighting explains independence axiom violations in monkeys," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(3), pages 319-351, December.
    7. Camillo Padoa-Schioppa & John A. Assad, 2006. "Neurons in the orbitofrontal cortex encode economic value," Nature, Nature, vol. 441(7090), pages 223-226, May.
    8. Daniel Serra, 2021. "Decision-making: from neuroscience to neuroeconomics—an overview," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 91(1), pages 1-80, July.
    9. You-Ping Yang & Xinjian Li & Veit Stuphorn, 2022. "Primate anterior insular cortex represents economic decision variables proposed by prospect theory," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, December.
    10. Pavlo Blavatskyy & Andreas Ortmann & Valentyn Panchenko, 2022. "On the Experimental Robustness of the Allais Paradox," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(1), pages 143-163, February.
    11. Sébastien Ballesta & Weikang Shi & Katherine E. Conen & Camillo Padoa-Schioppa, 2020. "Values encoded in orbitofrontal cortex are causally related to economic choices," Nature, Nature, vol. 588(7838), pages 450-453, December.
    12. Mark Schneider & Robert Day, 2018. "Target-Adjusted Utility Functions and Expected-Utility Paradoxes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 271-287, January.
    13. Joseph A. Mikels & Andrew E. Reed, 2009. "Monetary Losses Do Not Loom Large in Later Life: Age Differences in the Framing Effect," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 64(4), pages 457-460.
    14. Francesca de Petrillo & Alexandra Rosati, 2021. "Variation in primate decision-making under uncertainty and the roots of human economic behaviour," Post-Print hal-03151858, HAL.
    15. M. Keith Chen & Venkat Lakshminarayanan & Laurie R. Santos, 2006. "How Basic Are Behavioral Biases? Evidence from Capuchin Monkey Trading Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(3), pages 517-537, June.
    16. John D. Hey & Chris Orme, 2018. "Investigating Generalizations Of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 3, pages 63-98, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    17. Alexandre Pastor-Bernier & Arkadiusz Stasiak & Wolfram Schultz, 2019. "Orbitofrontal signals for two-component choice options comply with indifference curves of Revealed Preference Theory," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 1-19, December.
    18. Shiva Farashahi & Christopher H. Donahue & Benjamin Y. Hayden & Daeyeol Lee & Alireza Soltani, 2019. "Flexible combination of reward information across primates," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(11), pages 1215-1224, November.
    19. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2007. "Stochastic expected utility theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 259-286, June.
    20. 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.
    21. Brosnan, Sarah F. & Price, Sara A. & Leverett, Kelly & Prétôt, Laurent & Beran, Michael & Wilson, Bart J., 2017. "Human and monkey responses in a symmetric game of conflict with asymmetric equilibria," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 293-306.
    22. Blavatskyy, Pavlo R., 2013. "The reverse Allais paradox," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 119(1), pages 60-64.
    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. Simone Ferrari-Toniolo & Leo Chi U. Seak & Wolfram Schultz, 2022. "Risky choice: Probability weighting explains independence axiom violations in monkeys," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(3), pages 319-351, December.
    2. Wan-Yu Shih & Hsiang-Yu Yu & Cheng-Chia Lee & Chien-Chen Chou & Chien Chen & Paul W. Glimcher & Shih-Wei Wu, 2023. "Electrophysiological population dynamics reveal context dependencies during decision making in human frontal cortex," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-24, December.
    3. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2011. "Loss aversion," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 46(1), pages 127-148, January.
    4. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda & Adrian Bruhin, 2011. "Viewing the future through a warped lens: Why uncertainty generates hyperbolic discounting," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 169-203, December.
    5. Daniel R. Cavagnaro & Richard Gonzalez & Jay I. Myung & Mark A. Pitt, 2013. "Optimal Decision Stimuli for Risky Choice Experiments: An Adaptive Approach," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 358-375, February.
    6. Daniel Navarro-Martinez & Graham Loomes & Andrea Isoni & David Butler & Larbi Alaoui, 2018. "Boundedly rational expected utility theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 199-223, December.
    7. Anna Conte & John D. Hey & Peter G. Moffatt, 2018. "Mixture models of choice under risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 1, pages 3-12, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. David M. Bruner, 2017. "Does decision error decrease with risk aversion?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(1), pages 259-273, March.
    9. Adam Booij & Bernard Praag & Gijs Kuilen, 2010. "A parametric analysis of prospect theory’s functionals for the general population," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 115-148, February.
    10. Sébastien Ballesta & Weikang Shi & Camillo Padoa-Schioppa, 2022. "Orbitofrontal cortex contributes to the comparison of values underlying economic choices," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, December.
    11. Blavatskyy, Pavlo, 2016. "Probability weighting and L-moments," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 255(1), pages 103-109.
    12. Nathaniel T. Wilcox, 2015. "Error and Generalization in Discrete Choice Under Risk," Working Papers 15-11, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    13. Mark Schneider, 2016. "Dual Process Utility Theory: A Model of Decisions Under Risk and Over Time," Working Papers 16-23, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    14. Manel Baucells & Antonio Villasís, 2010. "Stability of risk preferences and the reflection effect of prospect theory," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 193-211, February.
    15. Yi Li, 2021. "The ABC mechanism: an incentive compatible payoff mechanism for elicitation of outcome and probability transformations," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(3), pages 1019-1046, September.
    16. Andreas C Drichoutis & Jayson L Lusk, 2014. "Judging Statistical Models of Individual Decision Making under Risk Using In- and Out-of-Sample Criteria," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-13, July.
    17. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2018. "A second-generation disappointment aversion theory of decision making under risk," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 29-60, January.
    18. Toritseju Begho & Kelvin Balcombe, 2023. "Attitudes to Risk and Uncertainty: New Insights From an Experiment Using Interval Prospects," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, July.
    19. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda, 2012. "The missing link: unifying risk taking and time discounting," ECON - Working Papers 096, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Oct 2018.
    20. Steven J. Humphrey & Nadia-Yasmine Kruse, 2024. "Who accepts Savage’s axiom now?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 1-17, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Independence axiom; utility; risk; choice;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:liv:livedp:202316. 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: Rachel Slater (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mslivuk.html .

    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.