ArticleScientific reports2022
The influence of ergodicity on risk affinity of timed and non-timed respondents.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Ergodicity transformations predict human decision-making under risk.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Expected values are the metric most often used to judge human decision-making; when humans make decisions that do not optimize expected values, these decisions are considered irrational. However, while convenient, expected values do not necessarily describe the evolution of an individual after making a series of decisions. This dichotomy lies at the core of ergodicity breaking, where the expected value (ensemble average) differs from the temporal average of one individual. In this paper, we explore whether the intuition behind human decision-making optimizes for expected values or instead takes time growth rates into account. We do this using several stated choice experiments, where participants choose between two stochastic bets and try to optimize their capital. To evaluate the intuitive choice, we compare two groups, with and without perceived time pressure. We find a significant difference between the responses of the timed and the control group, depending on the dynamic of the choices. In an additive dynamic, where ergodicity is not broken, we observe no effect of time pressure on the decisions. In the non-ergodic, multiplicative setting, we find a significant difference between the two groups. The group that chooses under time pressure is more likely to make the choice that optimizes the experiment's growth rate. The results of this experiment contradict the idea that people are irrational decision-makers when they do not optimize their expected value. The intuitive decisions deviate more from the expected value optimum in the non-ergodic part of our experiment and lead to more optimal decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.