» Articles » PMID: 23358126

State Dependent Valuation: the Effect of Deprivation on Risk Preferences

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2013 Jan 30
PMID 23358126
Citations 37
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The internal state of an organism affects its choices. Previous studies in various non-human animals have demonstrated a complex, and in some cases non-monotonic, interaction between internal state and risk preferences. Our aim was to examine the systematic effects of deprivation on human decision-making across various reward types. Using both a non-parametric approach and a classical economic analysis, we asked whether the risk attitudes of human subjects towards money, food and water rewards would change as a function of their internal metabolic state. Our findings replicate some previous work suggesting that, on average, humans become more risk tolerant in their monetary decisions, as they get hungry. However, our specific approach allowed us to make two novel observations about the complex interaction between internal state and risk preferences. First, we found that the change in risk attitude induced by food deprivation is a general phenomenon, affecting attitudes towards both monetary and consumable rewards. But much more importantly, our data indicate that rather than each subject becoming more risk tolerant as previously hypothesized based on averaging across subjects, we found that as a population of human subjects becomes food deprived the heterogeneity of their risk attitudes collapses towards a fixed point. Thus subjects who show high-risk aversion while satiated shift towards moderate risk aversion when deprived but subjects who are risk tolerant become more risk averse. These findings demonstrate a more complicated interaction between internal state and risk preferences and raise some interesting implications for both day-to-day decisions and financial market structures.

Citing Articles

Food for thought: The impact of short term fasting on cognitive ability.

Landini A, Segovia M, Palma M, Nayga Jr R PLoS One. 2024; 19(11):e0312811.

PMID: 39585881 PMC: 11588246. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312811.


How can ethology inform the neuroscience of fear, aggression and dominance?.

Battivelli D, Fan Z, Hu H, Gross C Nat Rev Neurosci. 2024; 25(12):809-819.

PMID: 39402310 DOI: 10.1038/s41583-024-00858-2.


Foraging in a non-foraging task: Fitness maximization explains human risk preference dynamics under changing environment.

Mochizuki Y, Harasawa N, Aggarwal M, Chen C, Fukuda H PLoS Comput Biol. 2024; 20(5):e1012080.

PMID: 38739672 PMC: 11115364. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012080.


Competitive integration of time and reward explains value-sensitive foraging decisions and frontal cortex ramping dynamics.

Bukwich M, Campbell M, Zoltowski D, Kingsbury L, Tomov M, Stern J bioRxiv. 2023; .

PMID: 37732217 PMC: 10508756. DOI: 10.1101/2023.09.05.556267.


Gambling on an empty stomach: Hunger modulates preferences for learned but not described risks.

van Swieten M, Bogacz R, Manohar S Brain Behav. 2023; 13(5):e2978.

PMID: 37016956 PMC: 10176009. DOI: 10.1002/brb3.2978.


References
1.
Levy D, Glimcher P . Comparing apples and oranges: using reward-specific and reward-general subjective value representation in the brain. J Neurosci. 2011; 31(41):14693-707. PMC: 3763520. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2218-11.2011. View

2.
Nelson L, Morrison E . The symptoms of resource scarcity: judgments of food and finances influence preferences for potential partners. Psychol Sci. 2005; 16(2):167-73. DOI: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00798.x. View

3.
Levy D, Glimcher P . The root of all value: a neural common currency for choice. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2012; 22(6):1027-38. PMC: 4093837. DOI: 10.1016/j.conb.2012.06.001. View

4.
Lappalainen R, Epstein L . A behavioral economics analysis of food choice in humans. Appetite. 1990; 14(2):81-93. DOI: 10.1016/0195-6663(90)90002-p. View

5.
Epstein L, Truesdale R, Wojcik A, Paluch R, Raynor H . Effects of deprivation on hedonics and reinforcing value of food. Physiol Behav. 2003; 78(2):221-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0031-9384(02)00978-2. View