Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Decision Making

Decision Making

Decision-making is a fundamental cognitive process that involves evaluating alternatives and selecting among them. This process can range from simple choices, such as deciding what to wear, to complex decisions, like choosing a major in college or a career path. The complexity of the decision often dictates the approach we use, which can be broadly categorized into two types: automatic and controlled decision-making.
Automatic decision-making is fast, intuitive, and relies on gut feelings...

Decision Making: Traditional Method

Decision Making: Traditional Method

The process of hypothesis testing based on the traditional method includes calculating the critical value, testing the value of the test statistic using the sample data, and interpreting these values.
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is decided based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to this claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses, out of which a null hypothesis would be a...

Hindsight Biases

Hindsight Biases

Hindsight bias leads you to believe that the event you just experienced was predictable, even though it really wasn’t. In other words, you knew all along that things would turn out the way they did. Can you relate this to the phrase "Hindsight is 20/20" now?

Social Proof

Social proof is a form of persuasion based on comparison and conformity. People compare their behavior and actions to what others are doing and will change to conform to do what their peers do.

Reason and Intuition

Reason and Intuition

The human brain processes information for decision-making using one of two routes: an intuitive system and a rational system (Epstein, 1994; popularized by Kahneman, 2011 as System 1 and System 2, respectively). The intuitive system is quick, impulsive, and operates with minimal effort, relying on emotions or habits to provide cues for what to do next, while the rational system is logical, analytical, deliberate, and methodical. Research in neuropsychology suggests that the brain can only use...

Fundamental Attribution Error

Fundamental Attribution Error

According to some social psychologists, people tend to overemphasize internal factors as explanations—or attributions—for the behavior of other people. They tend to assume that the behavior of another person is a trait of that person, and to underestimate the power of the situation on the behavior of others. They tend to fail to recognize when the behavior of another is due to situational variables, and thus to the person’s state. This erroneous assumption is called the fundamental attribution...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Predicting human decisions with behavioural theories and machine learning.

Nature human behaviour·2025

Same author

The effect of incentivization on the conjunction fallacy in judgments: a meta-analysis.

Psychological research·2023

Same author

Contradictory deviations from maximization: Environment-specific biases, or reflections of basic properties of human learning?

Psychological review·2023

Same author

Choice behavior in autistic adults: What drives the extreme switching phenomenon?

PloS one·2023

Same author

Symptoms of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Are Associated with Sub-Optimal and Inconsistent Temporal Decision Making.

Brain sciences·2022

Same author

Food Perceptions in Adults with and without ADHD.

Psychopathology·2022

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 15, 2026

Measuring the Subjective Value of Risky and Ambiguous Options using Experimental Economics and Functional MRI Methods

Measuring the Subjective Value of Risky and Ambiguous Options using Experimental Economics and Functional MRI Methods

Published on: September 19, 2012

Consistent constructs in individuals' risk taking in decisions from experience.

Eyal Ert¹, Eldad Yechiam

¹Harvard University, Boston, MA 02163, United States.

Acta Psychologica

|March 13, 2010

Summary

Individuals show inconsistent risk-taking behavior, particularly regarding variance sensitivity. However, consistent diminishing sensitivity exists within gain and loss domains, with risk acceptance being key for decisions involving probable outcomes.

More Related Videos

A Conflict Model of Reward-seeking Behavior in Male Rats

A Conflict Model of Reward-seeking Behavior in Male Rats

Published on: February 20, 2019

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 15, 2026

Measuring the Subjective Value of Risky and Ambiguous Options using Experimental Economics and Functional MRI Methods

Measuring the Subjective Value of Risky and Ambiguous Options using Experimental Economics and Functional MRI Methods

Published on: September 19, 2012

A Conflict Model of Reward-seeking Behavior in Male Rats

A Conflict Model of Reward-seeking Behavior in Male Rats

Published on: February 20, 2019

Area of Science:

Psychology
Behavioral Economics
Decision Science

Background:

Understanding individual risk-taking behavior is crucial in economics and psychology.
Existing theories propose different psychological constructs influence risk preferences, including sensitivity to variance, losses, and willingness to accept risk.

Purpose of the Study:

To evaluate the consistency of psychological constructs affecting risk-taking in experiential decisions.
To contrast the classical economic, latent-components, and risk acceptance approaches to risk-taking behavior.

Main Methods:

Three empirical studies were conducted to analyze decision-making under risk.
Participants' choices were analyzed across varying levels of risk and different decision contexts.

Main Results:

Individuals demonstrated inconsistency in their sensitivity to variance.
Diminishing sensitivity was consistent within gain and loss domains, but cross-domain consistency was observed primarily in decisions between certainty and probabilistic outcomes.
Risk acceptance showed domain-specific psychological constructs when gains and losses co-occurred.

Conclusions:

Risk-taking behavior is not uniformly consistent across all psychological constructs.
While diminishing sensitivity is a stable factor within specific domains, risk acceptance plays a significant role in consistent decision-making, particularly in mixed domains.