Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 629–636 | Cite as

Remembering the best and worst of times: Memories for extreme outcomes bias risky decisions

  • Christopher R. Madan
  • Elliot A. Ludvig
  • Marcia L. SpetchEmail author
Brief Report

Abstract

When making decisions on the basis of past experiences, people must rely on their memories. Human memory has many well-known biases, including the tendency to better remember highly salient events. We propose an extreme-outcome rule, whereby this memory bias leads people to overweight the largest gains and largest losses, leading to more risk seeking for relative gains than for relative losses. To test this rule, in two experiments, people repeatedly chose between fixed and risky options, where the risky option led equiprobably to more or less than did the fixed option. As was predicted, people were more risk seeking for relative gains than for relative losses. In subsequent memory tests, people tended to recall the extreme outcome first and also judged the extreme outcome as having occurred more frequently. Across individuals, risk preferences in the risky-choice task correlated with these memory biases. This extreme-outcome rule presents a novel mechanism through which memory influences decision making.

Keywords

Risky choice Memory biases Decisions from experience Decision making Behavioral economics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Research was funded by grants from the Alberta Gambling Research Institute (AGRI) and the National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada held by M.L.S. C.R.M. was supported by scholarships from AGRI and NSERC. E.A.L. was supported by NIH Grant #P30 AG024361. We thank the Explore-Exploit Group at Princeton for insightful discussions and Ashley Rodgers for research help. Door images were extracted from “Irish Doors” on fineartamerica.com, with permission from Joe Bonita.

References

  1. Abdi, H. (2007). Part and partial correlations. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics (pp. 736–740). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, R., & Kulik, J. (1977). Flashbulb memories. Cognition, 5, 73–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Denrell, J., & March, J. G. (2001). Adaptation as information restriction: The hot stove effect. Organization Science, 12, 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ert, E., & Yechiam, E. (2010). Consistent constructs in individuals’ risk taking in decisions from experience. Acta Psychologica, 134, 225–232Google Scholar
  5. Erev, I., Ert, E., Roth, A. E., Haruvy, E., Herzog, S. M., Hau, R., Hertwig, R., Stewart, T., West, R., & Lebiere, C. (2010). A choice prediction competition: Choices from experience and from description. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23, 15–47.Google Scholar
  6. Fredrickson, B. L. (2000). Extracting meaning from past affective experiences: The importance of peaks, ends, and specific emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 14, 577–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ginley, M.K., Whelan, J.P., Meyers, A.W., Relyea, G.E., & Pearlson, G.D. (2013). Exploring a multidimensional approach to impulsivity in predicting college student gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies. in pressGoogle Scholar
  8. Gonzalez, C., & Dutt, V. (2011). Instance-based learning: Integrating sampling and repeated decisions from experience. Psychological Review, 118, 523–551.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Delton, A. W., & Robertson, T. E. (2011). The influence of mortality and socioeconomic status on risk and delayed rewards: A life history theory approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 1015–1026.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Heilbronner, S. R., & Hayden, B. Y. (2013). Contextual factors explain risk-seeking preferences in rhesus monkeys. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 7, 7.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hertwig, R., & Erev, I. (2009). The description-experience gap in risky choice. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 517–523.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E. U., & Erev, I. (2004). Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychological Science, 15, 534–539.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson, E. J., Häubl, G., & Keinan, A. (2007). Aspects of endowment: A query theory of value construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory & Cognition, 33, 461–474.Google Scholar
  14. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kahneman, D., Fredrickson, B. L., Schreiber, C. A., & Redelmeier, D. A. (1993). When more pain is preferred to less: Adding a better end. Psychological Science, 4, 401–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ludvig, E. A., & Spetch, M. L. (2011). Of black swans and tossed coins: Is the description-experience gap in risky choice limited to rare events? PLoS ONE, 6, e20262.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ludvig, E.A., Madan, C.R., & Spetch, M.L. (2013). Extreme outcomes sway experience-based risky decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. in pressGoogle Scholar
  18. Madan, C. R., & Spetch, M. L. (2012). Is the enhancement of memory due to reward driven by value or salience? Acta Psychologica, 139, 343–349.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Madan, C. R., Fujiwara, E., Gerson, B. C., & Caplan, J. B. (2012). High reward makes items easier to remember, but harder to bind to a new temporal context. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 6, 61.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Morewedge, C. K., Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2005). The least likely of times: How remembering the past biases forecasts of the future. Psychological Science, 16, 626–630.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Niv, Y., Edlund, J. A., Dayan, P., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2012). Neural prediction errors reveal a risk-sensitive reinforcement-learning process in the human brain. Journal of Neuroscience, 32, 551–562.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Phelps, E. A., & Sharot, T. (2008). How (and why) emotion enhances the subjective sense of recollection. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 147–152.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shafir, E. (1993). Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others. Memory & Cognition, 21, 546–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stewart, N., Chater, N., & Brown, G. D. A. (2006). Decision by sampling. Cognitive Psychology, 53, 1–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Talarico, J. M., & Rubin, D. C. (2003). Confidence, not consistency, characterizes flashbulb memories. Psychological Science, 14, 455–461.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tsetsos, K., Chater, N., & Usher, M. (2012). Salience driven value integration explains decision biases and preference reversal. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 109, 9659–9664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Weber, E. U., & Johnson, E. J. (2006). Constructing preferences from memories. In S. Lichtenstein & P. Slovic (Eds.), The construction of preference (pp. 397–410). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Weber, E. U., Shafir, S., & Blais, A.-R. (2004). Predicting risk sensitivity in humans and lower animals: Risk as variance or coefficient of variation. Psychological Review, 111, 430–445.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yechiam, E., & Hochman, G. (2013). Losses as modulators of attention: Review and analysis of the unique effects of losses over gains. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 497–518.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yu, E. C., Lagnado, D. A., & Chater, N. (2008). Retrospective evaluations of gambling wins: Evidence for a ‘peak-end’ rule. Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 30, 77–82.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher R. Madan
    • 1
  • Elliot A. Ludvig
    • 2
    • 3
  • Marcia L. Spetch
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Princeton Neuroscience InstitutePrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations