Economic and social deprivation predicts impulsive choice in children.

Impulsivity is an individual difference in decision-making that is a risk factor for a number of health concerns including addiction and obesity. Although impulsivity has a large heritable component, the health concerns associated with impulsivity are not uniformly distributed across society. For example, people from poorer backgrounds are more likely to be overweight, and be dependent on tobacco or alcohol. This suggests that the environmental component of impulsivity might be related to economic circumstances and the availability of resources. This paper provides evidence that children aged 4 to 12 from the most deprived areas in England show greater impulsivity in the form of delay discounting than do children from the least deprived areas. The data are discussed with reference to scarcity-based models of decision-making and to public health inequalities.

Do We Become More Cautious for Others When Large Amounts of Money Are at Stake?

A considerable proportion of financial decisions are made by agents acting on behalf of other people. Although people are more cautious for others when making medical decisions, this does not seem to be the case for economic decisions. However, studies with large amounts of money are particularly absent from the literature, which precludes a clear comparison to studies in the medical domain. To address this gap, we investigated the effect of outcome magnitude in two experiments where participants made choices between safe and risky options. Decision-makers were not more cautious for others over large amounts. In fact, risk-taking was accentuated for large amounts in the gain domain. We did not find self-other differences in the loss domain for either outcome magnitude. This suggests that the caution observed in medical decisions does not replicate in financial decisions with large amounts, or at least not in the same way. These results echo the concerns that have been raised about excessive risk-taking by financial agents.

Is there a health inequality in gambling related harms? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Here we present a systematic review of the existing research into gambling harms, in order to determine whether there are differences in the presentation of these across demographic groups such as age, gender, culture, and socioeconomic status, or gambling behaviour categories such as risk severity and participation frequency. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Inclusion criteria were: 1) focus on gambling harms; 2) focus on harms to the gambler rather than affected others; 3) discussion of specific listed harms and not just harms in general terms. Exclusion criteria were: 1) research of non-human subjects; 2) not written in English; 3) not an empirical study; 4) not available as a full article. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search using the Web of Science and Scopus databases in August 2020. Assessment of quality took place using Standard Quality Assessment Criteria. RESULTS: A total of 59 studies published between 1994 and 2020 met the inclusion criteria. These were categorised into thematic groups for comparison and discussion. There were replicated differences found in groups defined by age, socioeconomic status, education level, ethnicity and culture, risk severity, and gambling behaviours. CONCLUSION: Harms appear to be dependent on specific social, demographic and environmental conditions that suggests there is a health inequality in gambling related harms. Further investigation is required to develop standardised measurement tools and to understand confounding variables and co-morbidities. With a robust understanding of harms distribution in the population, Primary Care Workers will be better equipped to identify those who are at risk, or who are showing signs of Gambling Disorder, and to target prevention and intervention programmes appropriately.

Do our risk preferences change when we make decisions for others? A meta-analysis of self-other differences in decisions involving risk.

BACKGROUND: Are we more risk-averse or risk-seeking when we make decisions on behalf of other people as opposed to ourselves? So far, findings have not been able to provide a clear and consistent answer. METHOD: We propose a meta-analysis to assess whether self-other differences vary according to particular features of the decision. We reviewed 78 effect sizes from 49 studies (7,576 participants). RESULTS: There was no overall self-other difference, but there were moderating effects of domain and frame. Decisions in the interpersonal domain were more risk-averse for self than for other. Decisions in the medical domain were more risk-seeking for self than for other. There were no overall self-other differences in the financial domain, however there was a moderating effect of frame: decisions in a gain frame were more risk-averse for self than other whereas decisions in a loss frame were more risk-seeking for self than other. This effect of frame was slightly different overall and in the medical domain, where self-other differences occurred in a loss frame but not in a gain frame. CONCLUSION: Future work should continue to investigate how the specific content and context of the decision impacts self-other differences in order to understand the effects of domain and frame we report.

Who's been framed? Framing effects are reduced in financial gambles made for others.

BACKGROUND: Decisions made on behalf of other people are sometimes more rational than those made for oneself. In this study we used a monetary gambling task to ask if the framing effect in decision-making is reduced in surrogate decision-making. METHODS: Participants made a series of choices between a predetermined sure option and a risky gambling option of winning a proportion of an initial stake. Trials were presented as either a gain or a loss relative to that initial stake. In half of the trials participants made choices to earn money for themselves and in the other half they earned money for another participant. Framing effects were measured as risk seeking in loss frames and risk aversion in gain frames. RESULTS: Significant framing effects were observed both in trials in which participants earned money for themselves and those in which they earned money for another person; however, these framing effects were significantly reduced when making decisions for another person. It appears that the reduced emotional involvement when the decision-maker is not affected by the outcome of the decision thus lessens the framing effect without eradicating it altogether. CONCLUSIONS: This suggests that the deviation from rational choices in decision-making can be significantly reduced when the emotional impact on the decision maker is lessened. These results are discussed in relation to Somatic Distortion Theory.

Effects of measurement methods on the relationship between smoking and delay reward discounting.

AIMS: Delay reward discounting (DRD) measures the degree to which a person prefers smaller rewards soon or larger rewards later. People who smoke have been shown to have higher DRD. There are several ways of measuring DRD, and the method used might influence the association between smoking and DRD. The key differences are the order in which the items are presented, the delays used and the magnitude of the delayed amount. SETTING: An international online study running from September 2010 to June 2011. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 9454 individuals; 38% male, mean age = 23.1 years. DESIGN AND MEASUREMENTS: Users completed a multi-item DRD task. They were randomly presented the immediate rewards in an ascending, descending or randomized order. The delays were between 1 week and 5 years. The delayed amounts were $1000 for all delays, and $100 for 1 month. Users also self-reported their smoking status. FINDINGS: A hyperbolic DRD function fitted better than an exponential function. There were differences in the derived DRD function based on methodology used; items presented in a randomized order, longer delays and smaller rewards showed steeper discounting. However, these did not interact with smoking status, as for all methodologies used daily smokers showed the steepest discounting, followed by non-daily smokers, then non-smokers. CONCLUSIONS: Smokers discount future consequences more than non-smokers, irrespective of which measurement is used, but variations in method lead to different estimates that are not comparable between experiments.