ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2023
The composition of the choice set modulates probability weighting in risky decisions.
Article in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Belief updating in uncertain environments is differentially sensitive to reward and punishment learning: Evidence from ERP.iScience · 2026Article
- Modeling decision-making under uncertainty with qualitative outcomes.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Moderate stability of risk and ambiguity attitudes across quantitative and qualitative decisions.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Individual differences in information demand have a low dimensional structure predicted by some curiosity traits.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Quantitative vs. Qualitative Outcomes: A Longitudinal Study of Risk and Ambiguity in Monetary and Medical Decision-Making.Research square · 2024Article
- Hierarchical Constraints on the Distribution of Attention in Dynamic Displays.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Probability distortion-the tendency to underweight larger probabilities and overweight smaller ones-is a robust empirical phenomenon and an important driver of suboptimal choices. We reveal a novel contextual effect on probability distortion that depends on the composition of the choice set. Probability distortion was larger in a magnitude-diverse choice set (in which participants encountered more unique magnitudes than probabilities) but declined, resulting in more veridical weighting, in a probability-diverse choice set (more unique probabilities than magnitudes). This effect was consistent in two, large, independent datasets (N = 481, N = 100) and held for a subset of lotteries that were identical in the two contexts. It also developed gradually as a function of exposure to the choice set, was independent of attentional biases to probability versus magnitude information, and was specific to probability weighting, leaving risk attitudes unaffected. The results highlight the importance of context when processing probabilistic information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36702993What 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.