Boosting promotes advantageous risk-taking

Abstract Due to the prevalence and importance of choices with uncertain outcomes, it is essential to establish what interventions improve risky decision-making, how they work, and for whom. Two types of low-intensity behavioural interventions are promising candidates: nudges and boosts. Nudges guide...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Tomas Folke, Giulia Bertoldo, Darlene D’Souza, Sonia Alì, Federica Stablum, Kai Ruggeri
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Springer Nature 2021
Materias:	History of scholarship and learning. The humanities AZ20-999 Social Sciences H
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/317cf152f4fc4ee68925e5543f8846f2
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:317cf152f4fc4ee68925e5543f8846f2
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:317cf152f4fc4ee68925e5543f8846f22021-11-21T12:28:13ZBoosting promotes advantageous risk-taking10.1057/s41599-021-00942-32662-9992https://doaj.org/article/317cf152f4fc4ee68925e5543f8846f22021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00942-3https://doaj.org/toc/2662-9992Abstract Due to the prevalence and importance of choices with uncertain outcomes, it is essential to establish what interventions improve risky decision-making, how they work, and for whom. Two types of low-intensity behavioural interventions are promising candidates: nudges and boosts. Nudges guide people to better decisions by altering how a choice is presented, without restricting any options or modifying the underlying payoff matrix. Boosts, on the other hand, teach people decision strategies that focus their attention on key aspects of the choice, which allows them to make more informed decisions. A recent study compared these two types of interventions and found that boosts worked better for risky choices aimed at maximising gains, whereas nudges worked best for choices aimed at minimising losses. Though intriguing, these findings could not be easily interpreted because of a limitation in the items used. Here we replicate that study, with an extended item set. We find that boosts work by promoting risk-taking when it is beneficial, whereas nudges have a consistent (lesser) impact, regardless of whether risk-taking is beneficial or not. These results suggest that researchers and policymakers should consider the base rate risk propensity of the target population when designing decision-support systems.Tomas FolkeGiulia BertoldoDarlene D’SouzaSonia AlìFederica StablumKai RuggeriSpringer NaturearticleHistory of scholarship and learning. The humanitiesAZ20-999Social SciencesHENHumanities & Social Sciences Communications, Vol 8, Iss 1, Pp 1-10 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	History of scholarship and learning. The humanities AZ20-999 Social Sciences H
spellingShingle	History of scholarship and learning. The humanities AZ20-999 Social Sciences H Tomas Folke Giulia Bertoldo Darlene D’Souza Sonia Alì Federica Stablum Kai Ruggeri Boosting promotes advantageous risk-taking
description	Abstract Due to the prevalence and importance of choices with uncertain outcomes, it is essential to establish what interventions improve risky decision-making, how they work, and for whom. Two types of low-intensity behavioural interventions are promising candidates: nudges and boosts. Nudges guide people to better decisions by altering how a choice is presented, without restricting any options or modifying the underlying payoff matrix. Boosts, on the other hand, teach people decision strategies that focus their attention on key aspects of the choice, which allows them to make more informed decisions. A recent study compared these two types of interventions and found that boosts worked better for risky choices aimed at maximising gains, whereas nudges worked best for choices aimed at minimising losses. Though intriguing, these findings could not be easily interpreted because of a limitation in the items used. Here we replicate that study, with an extended item set. We find that boosts work by promoting risk-taking when it is beneficial, whereas nudges have a consistent (lesser) impact, regardless of whether risk-taking is beneficial or not. These results suggest that researchers and policymakers should consider the base rate risk propensity of the target population when designing decision-support systems.
format	article
author	Tomas Folke Giulia Bertoldo Darlene D’Souza Sonia Alì Federica Stablum Kai Ruggeri
author_facet	Tomas Folke Giulia Bertoldo Darlene D’Souza Sonia Alì Federica Stablum Kai Ruggeri
author_sort	Tomas Folke
title	Boosting promotes advantageous risk-taking
title_short	Boosting promotes advantageous risk-taking
title_full	Boosting promotes advantageous risk-taking
title_fullStr	Boosting promotes advantageous risk-taking
title_full_unstemmed	Boosting promotes advantageous risk-taking
title_sort	boosting promotes advantageous risk-taking
publisher	Springer Nature
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/317cf152f4fc4ee68925e5543f8846f2
work_keys_str_mv	AT tomasfolke boostingpromotesadvantageousrisktaking AT giuliabertoldo boostingpromotesadvantageousrisktaking AT darlenedsouza boostingpromotesadvantageousrisktaking AT soniaali boostingpromotesadvantageousrisktaking AT federicastablum boostingpromotesadvantageousrisktaking AT kairuggeri boostingpromotesadvantageousrisktaking
_version_	1718418996930281472

Boosting promotes advantageous risk-taking

Ejemplares similares