ArticleScientific reports2026
Attention costs drive differences between active and passive risk-taking.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Humans change their exposure to risks either actively, by taking deliberate actions, or passively, through inaction. These different modes of choice may result in varying levels of risk exposure. This study introduces a novel experimental task, the Dynamic Lottery Adjustment Task (DLAT), to investigate the effects of active versus passive risk-taking across two related experiments. The DLAT addresses a gap in the literature, as existing incentivized risk measures exclusively target active risk-taking. Consequently, differences between active and passive risk-taking have previously been studied only through non-incentivized surveys and vignettes focusing on specific choice domains (e.g., vaccination decisions). The first study, a controlled laboratory experiment, shows little variation in risk-taking between active and passive choice modes, contradicting existing findings of a general "passive-is-less-risky" bias. Conversely, the second experiment, conducted online over ten days, introduces higher attention costs and provides strong evidence that these costs significantly influence risk-taking behaviors in more naturalistic decision-making environments. Our findings highlight the importance of considering situational factors, such as attention costs, in understanding how different choice modes affect risk-taking in real-life settings, including financial investments, health behaviors, or career choices.
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.