Risk, Choice, and Uncertainty

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
George G. Szpiro
Keyword(s):  
Risk Choice

scholarly journals Motivational system modulates brain responses during exploratory decision-making

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chia-Wei Li ◽  
Carol Yeh-Yun Lin ◽  
Ting-Ting Chang ◽  
Nai-Shing Yen ◽  
Danchi Tan
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
High Performance ◽  
Behavioral Activation ◽  
Motivational Orientation ◽  
Performance Group ◽  
Reward Seeking ◽  
Brain Responses ◽  
Low Performance ◽  
Risk Choice ◽  
The Brain

AbstractManagers face risk in explorative decision-making and those who are better at such decisions can achieve future viability. To understand what makes a manager effective at explorative decision-making requires an analysis of the manager’s motivational characteristics. The behavioral activation/inhibition system (BAS/BIS), fitting the motivational orientation of “approach” or “avoidance,” can affect individual decision-making. However, very little is known about the neural correlates of BAS/BIS orientation and their interrelationship with the mental activity during explorative decision-making. We conducted an fMRI study on 111 potential managers to investigate how the brain responses of explorative decision-making interact with BAS/BIS. Participants were separated into high- and low-performance groups based on the median exploration-score. The low-performance group showed significantly higher BAS than that of the high-performance group, and its BAS had significant negative association with neural networks related to reward-seeking during explorative decision-making. Moreover, the BIS of the low-performance group was negatively correlated with the activation of cerebral regions responding to risk-choice during explorative decision-making. Our finding showed that BAS/BIS was associated with the brain activation during explorative decision-making only in the low-performance group. This study contributed to the understanding of the micro-foundations of strategically relevant decision-making and has an implication for management development.

scholarly journals Risk, Choice and Social Disadvantage: Young People's Decision-Making in a Marketised Higher Education System

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 110-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheryl Clark ◽  
Anna Mountford-Zimdars ◽  
Becky Francis
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Young People ◽  
Social Disadvantage ◽  
Widening Participation ◽  
Tuition Fees ◽  
Higher Education System ◽  
High Achieving Students ◽  
Risk Choice ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Relationship

Rising tuition fees in England have been accompanied by a policy mandate for universities to widen participation by attracting students from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. This article focuses on one such group of high achieving students and their responses to rising tuition fees within the context of their participation in an outreach scheme at a research-intensive university in the UK. Our findings suggest that rather than being deterred from attending university as a result of fee increases, these young people demonstrated a detailed and fairly sophisticated understanding of higher education provision as a stratified and marketised system and justified fees within a discourse of ‘private good.’ Our analysis situates their ‘risk’ responses within the discursive tensions of the fees/widening participation mandate. We suggest that this tension highlights an intensified commodification of the relationship between higher education institutions and potential students from disadvantaged backgrounds in which widening participation agendas have shifted towards recruitment exercises. We argue that an ongoing effect of this shift has resulted in increased instrumentalism and a narrowing of choices for young people faced with the task of seeking out ‘value for money’ in their degrees whilst concurrently engaging in a number of personalised strategies aimed at compensating for social disadvantage in a system beset by structural inequalities.

scholarly journals MMR: risk, choice, chance

2004 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Fitzpatrick
Keyword(s):  
Risk Choice

Measuring Inequality

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Andreasen ◽  
Heather Doty
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Significance Test ◽  
Values In Science ◽  
Disparate Impact ◽  
Epistemic Values ◽  
Inductive Risk ◽  
The Third ◽  
Risk Choice

The focus of this chapter is on the argument from inductive risk in the context of social science research on disparate impact in employment outcomes. It identifies three types of situations in the testing of scientific theories, not sufficiently emphasized in the inductive risk literature, that raise considerations of inductive risk: choice of significance test, choice of how to measure disparate impact, and the operationalization of scientific variables. It argues that non-epistemic values have a legitimate role in two of these situations but not in the third. It uses this observation to build on the discussion of when and under what conditions considerations of inductive risk help to justify a role for non-epistemic values in science.

scholarly journals The Allure of High-Risk Rewards in Huntington’s disease

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 426-435 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nelleke C. van Wouwe ◽  
Kristen E. Kanoff ◽  
Daniel O. Claassen ◽  
K. Richard Ridderinkhof ◽  
Peter Hedera ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Huntington's Disease ◽  
Huntington’S Disease ◽  
Neurodegenerative Disorder ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Decision Bias ◽  
Clear Preference ◽  
High Reward ◽  
Risk Choice

AbstractObjectives: Huntington’s disease (HD) is a neurodegenerative disorder that produces a bias toward risky, reward-driven decisions in situations where the outcomes of decisions are uncertain and must be discovered. However, it is unclear whether HD patients show similar biases in decision-making when learning demands are minimized and prospective risks and outcomes are known explicitly. We investigated how risk decision-making strategies and adjustments are altered in HD patients when reward contingencies are explicit. Methods: HD (N=18) and healthy control (HC; N=17) participants completed a risk-taking task in which they made a series of independent choices between a low-risk/low reward and high-risk/high reward risk options. Results: Computational modeling showed that compared to HC, who showed a clear preference for low-risk compared to high-risk decisions, the HD group valued high-risks more than low-risk decisions, especially when high-risks were rewarded. The strategy analysis indicated that when high-risk options were rewarded, HC adopted a conservative risk strategy on the next trial by preferring the low-risk option (i.e., they counted their blessings and then played the surer bet). In contrast, following a rewarded high-risk choice, HD patients showed a clear preference for repeating the high-risk choice. Conclusions: These results indicate a pattern of high-risk/high-reward decision bias in HD that persists when outcomes and risks are certain. The allure of high-risk/high-reward decisions in situations of risk certainty and uncertainty expands our insight into the dynamic decision-making deficits that create considerable clinical burden in HD. (JINS, 2016, 22, 426–435)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document