Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36654986›Full record

ArticleJournal of risk and uncertainty2022

Risky choice: Probability weighting explains independence axiom violations in monkeys.

Simone Ferrari-Toniolo, Leo Chi U Seak, Wolfram Schultz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of risk and uncertainty, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Simone Ferrari-Toniolo *Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9009-0764
Leo Chi U Seak *Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8188-6891
Wolfram SchultzDepartment of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8530-4518

Funding

Wellcome Trust 204811/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Expected Utility Theory (EUT) provides axioms for maximizing utility in risky choice. The Independence Axiom (IA) is its most demanding axiom: preferences between two options should not change when altering both options equally by mixing them with a common gamble. We tested common consequence (CC) and common ratio (CR) violations of the IA over several months in thousands of stochastic choices using a large variety of binary option sets. Three monkeys showed consistently few outright Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11166-022-09388-7.

Indexed as

ChoiceGamblePreference reversalProbability

Identifiers

PMID36654986
PMCPMC9840594

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.