Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Decision Making01:20

Decision Making

265
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...
265
The Influence of Cognition on Affect01:29

The Influence of Cognition on Affect

6
Cognition plays a pivotal role in shaping emotional experiences, as demonstrated by Schachter and Singer’s two-factor theory of emotion. According to this model, emotion arises from a combination of physiological arousal and cognitive interpretation. The body’s physiological response to stimuli is ambiguous and only gains emotional significance through cognitive labeling. For instance, an increased heart rate and adrenaline surge while standing near an attractive person may be...
6
Reason and Intuition01:37

Reason and Intuition

7.0K
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...
7.0K
Decision Making: Traditional Method01:14

Decision Making: Traditional Method

4.3K
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...
4.3K
The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic01:25

The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic

7.5K
In order to make good decisions, we use our knowledge and our reasoning. Often, this knowledge and reasoning is sound and solid. However, sometimes, we are swayed by biases or by others manipulating a situation. For example, let’s say you and three friends wanted to rent a house and had a combined target budget of $1,600. The realtor shows you only very run-down houses for $1,600 and then shows you a very nice house for $2,000. Might you ask each person to pay more in rent to get the...
7.5K
Decision Making: P-value Method01:09

Decision Making: P-value Method

5.8K
The process of hypothesis testing based on the P-value method includes calculating the P- value using the sample data and interpreting it.
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is proposed. The claim is based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to the claim  is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses:  a null hypothesis would be a neutral statement while the alternative hypothesis can...
5.8K

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

A theory of multiattribute search and choice.

Psychological review·2026
Same author

Perceptual similarity mostly ignores within-category feature distributions: Evidence from computational modeling of human categorizations.

Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition·2026
Same author

Parameter estimation of hyper-spherical diffusion models with a time-dependent threshold: An integral equation method.

Behavior research methods·2025
Same author

Structural projections to the nucleus accumbens link to impulsive components of human risk preference.

Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)·2025
Same author

Disentangling Perceptual and Process-Related Sources of Behavioral Variability in Categorization.

Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science·2025
Same author

Identifying similarity- and rule-based processes in quantitative judgments: A multi-method approach combining cognitive modeling and eye tracking.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Sep 28, 2025

Errors as a Means of Reducing Impulsive Food Choice
07:07

Errors as a Means of Reducing Impulsive Food Choice

Published on: June 5, 2016

8.8K

Cognitive abilities affect decision errors but not risk preferences: A meta-analysis.

Tehilla Mechera-Ostrovsky1,2, Steven Heinke3, Sandra Andraszewicz4,5

  • 1School of Psychology, University of New South Wales Sydney, Sydney, 2052, Australia. t.mechera-ostrovsky@unsw.edu.au.

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
|March 30, 2022
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Cognitive abilities do not influence risk aversion. Apparent links between cognitive skills and risk-taking behavior are due to errors in decision-making tasks being misinterpreted as preferences.

Keywords:
Cognitive Reflection TestCognitive abilityMeta-analysisMultiple price listRaven’s matricesRisk preferencesValue-based decisions

More Related Videos

Measuring the Subjective Value of Risky and Ambiguous Options using Experimental Economics and Functional MRI Methods
13:04

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

Published on: September 19, 2012

12.2K
The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies
08:24

The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies

Published on: August 25, 2023

816

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Sep 28, 2025

Errors as a Means of Reducing Impulsive Food Choice
07:07

Errors as a Means of Reducing Impulsive Food Choice

Published on: June 5, 2016

8.8K
Measuring the Subjective Value of Risky and Ambiguous Options using Experimental Economics and Functional MRI Methods
13:04

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

Published on: September 19, 2012

12.2K
The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies
08:24

The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies

Published on: August 25, 2023

816

Area of Science:

  • Decision Science
  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Behavioral Economics

Background:

  • Individuals making risky decisions should weigh consequences and probabilities.
  • The risk-preference hypothesis posits that cognitive abilities influence choice evaluation and risk-taking.
  • An alternative error hypothesis suggests lower cognitive abilities increase decision errors, potentially misclassified as risk-seeking behavior.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To test the risk-preference hypothesis against the error hypothesis.
  • To determine if cognitive abilities are credibly associated with risk aversion.
  • To investigate the role of decision errors in observed correlations between cognition and risk preferences.

Main Methods:

  • Systematic literature review of 30 studies.
  • Bayesian meta-analysis of 62 effect sizes.
  • Comparison of competing hypotheses on cognitive abilities and risk preferences.

Main Results:

  • No credible association was found between cognitive abilities and risk aversion.
  • Apparent correlations are explained by biased risk-preference-elicitation tasks misinterpreting errors.
  • Erroneous choice behavior is a key mediator, not genuine risk preference differences.

Conclusions:

  • Reported associations between cognitive abilities and risk preferences are spurious.
  • Decision errors are often misinterpreted as specific risk preferences.
  • Findings have implications for research areas where errors might be mistaken for preference changes.