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:
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