IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/sfb649/sfb649dp2014-036.html

Portfolio decisions and brain reactions via the CEAD method

Author

Listed:
  • Majer, Piotr
  • Mohr, Peter N. C.
  • Heekeren, Hauke R.
  • Härdle, Wolfgang Karl

Abstract

Decision making can be a complex process requiring the integration of several attributes of choice options. Understanding the neural processes underlying (uncertain) investment decisions is an important topic in neuroeconomics. We analyzed functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data from an investment decision (ID) study for ID-related effects. We propose a new technique for identifying activated brain regions: Cluster, Estimation, Activation and Decision (CEAD) method. Our analysis is focused on clusters of voxels rather than voxel units. Thus, we achieve a higher signal to noise ratio within the unit tested and a smaller number of hypothesis tests compared with the often used General Linear Model (GLM). We propose to first conduct the brain parcellation by applying spatially constrained NCUT spectral clustering. The information within each cluster can then be extracted by the flexible DSFM dimension reduction technique and finally be tested for differences in activation between conditions. This sequence of Cluster, Estimation, Activation and Decision admits a model-free analysis of the local BOLD signal. Applying a GLM on the DSFM-based time series resulted in a significant correlation between the risk of choice options and changes in fMRI signal in the anterior insula (aINS) and DMPFC. Additionally, individual differences in decision-related reactions within the DSFM time series predicted individual differences in risk attitudes as modeled with the framework of the mean-variance model.

Suggested Citation

  • Majer, Piotr & Mohr, Peter N. C. & Heekeren, Hauke R. & Härdle, Wolfgang Karl, 2014. "Portfolio decisions and brain reactions via the CEAD method," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2014-036, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:sfb649:sfb649dp2014-036
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/103785/1/791043975.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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..
    2. Nikos K. Logothetis, 2008. "What we can do and what we cannot do with fMRI," Nature, Nature, vol. 453(7197), pages 869-878, June.
    3. Elke U. Weber & Richard A. Milliman, 1997. "Perceived Risk Attitudes: Relating Risk Perception to Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(2), pages 123-144, February.
    4. Park, Byeong U. & Mammen, Enno & Härdle, Wolfgang & Borak, Szymon, 2009. "Time Series Modelling With Semiparametric Factor Dynamics," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 104(485), pages 284-298.
    5. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2010-064 is not listed on IDEAS
    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:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2014-036 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Doll, Monika & Seebauer, Michael & Tonn, Maren, 2017. "Bargaining over waiting time in gain and loss framed ultimatum games," FAU Discussion Papers in Economics 15/2017, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Institute for Economics.
    3. Yuval Rottenstreich & Alex Markle & Johannes Müller-Trede, 2023. "Risky Sure Things," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(8), pages 4707-4720, August.
    4. Arvid Hoffmann & Sam Henry & Nikos Kalogeras, 2013. "Aspirations as reference points: an experimental investigation of risk behavior over time," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(2), pages 193-210, August.
    5. Divya Aggarwal & Pitabas Mohanty, 2022. "Influence of imprecise information on risk and ambiguity preferences: Experimental evidence," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(4), pages 1025-1038, June.
    6. Xaimarie Hernández-Cruz & Saylisse Dávila, 2020. "Quantifying adaptive capacity to floods: an assessment of Rincón, PR," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(1), pages 1537-1564, August.
    7. Adam S. Tuzolele Mbuku, 2024. "Evolution of the concept of Homo Economicus in light of advances in Neuroeconomics: towards a more realistic model of economic decision-making [Evolution du concept de l'Homo Economicus à la lumièr," Post-Print hal-04564775, HAL.
    8. Christine Kaufmann & Martin Weber & Emily Haisley, 2013. "The Role of Experience Sampling and Graphical Displays on One's Investment Risk Appetite," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 323-340, July.
    9. Katarzyna Kochaniak & Paweł Ulman, 2020. "Risk-Intolerant but Risk-Taking—Towards a Better Understanding of Inconsistent Survey Responses of the Euro Area Households," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-26, August.
    10. Levesque, Moren & Schade, Christian, 2005. "Intuitive optimizing: experimental findings on time allocation decisions with newly formed ventures," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 313-342, May.
    11. Ann-Renée Blais & Elke U. Weber, 2006. "A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT)Scale for Adult Populations," CIRANO Working Papers 2006s-24, CIRANO.
    12. Stefan Borsky & Paul A. Raschky, "undated". "Estimating the Option Value of Exercising Risk-taking Behavior with the Hedonic Market Approach," Working Papers 2008-14, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    13. Renato Frey & Shannon M. Duncan & Elke U. Weber, 2023. "Towards a typology of risk preference: Four risk profiles describe two-thirds of individuals in a large sample of the U.S. population," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 66(1), pages 1-17, February.
    14. Olsen, Carmen & Gold, Anna, 2018. "Future research directions at the intersection between cognitive neuroscience research and auditors’ professional skepticism," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 127-141.
    15. Canales, Elizabeth & Bergtold, Jason S. & Williams, Jeffery & Peterson, Jeffrey, 2015. "Estimating farmers’ risk attitudes and risk premiums for the adoption of conservation practices under different contractual arrangements: A stated choice experiment," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205640, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Alexis H. Villacis & Jeffrey R. Alwang & Victor Barrera, 2021. "Linking risk preferences and risk perceptions of climate change: A prospect theory approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(5), pages 863-877, September.
    17. Basu, Anup K. & Dulleck, Uwe, 2020. "Why do (some) consumers purchase complex financial products? An experimental study on investment in hybrid securities," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 203-220.
    18. Christian Ehm & Christine Kaufmann & Martin Weber, 2014. "Volatility Inadaptability: Investors Care About Risk, but Cannot Cope with Volatility," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 18(4), pages 1387-1423.
    19. Jason L. Brown & Patrick R. Martin & Geoffrey B. Sprinkle & Dan Way, 2023. "How Return on Investment and Residual Income Performance Measures and Risk Preferences Affect Risk-Taking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(2), pages 1301-1322, February.
    20. Csanaky, András & Ulbert, József, 2004. "Kockázatészlelés és kockázati magatartás [Risk testing and risk behaviour]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(3), pages 235-258.
    21. Matthias Brachert & Walter Hyll & Abdolkarim Sadrieh, 2020. "Entry into self-employment and individuals’ risk-taking propensities," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 55(4), pages 1057-1074, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C3 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables
    • C6 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling
    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • C14 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Semiparametric and Nonparametric Methods: General
    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty

    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:zbw:sfb649:sfb649dp2014-036. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sohubde.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.