Cited by 121Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesLeadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies

Decision making and learning while taking sequential risks.

Pleskac, Timothy J.·2008·Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

Abstract

A sequential risk-taking paradigm used to identify real-world risk takers invokes both learning and decision processes. This article expands the paradigm to a larger class of tasks with different stochastic environments and different learning requirements. Generalizing a Bayesian sequential risk-taking model to the larger set of tasks clarifies the roles of learning and decision making during sequential risky choice. Results show that respondents adapt their learning processes and associated mental representations of the task to the stochastic environment. Furthermore, their Bayesian learning processes are shown to interfere with the paradigm's identification of risky drug use, whereas the decision-making process facilitates its diagnosticity. Theoretical implications of the results in terms of both understanding risk-taking behavior and improving risk-taking assessment methods are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.167

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The sequential nature of the BART implies a learning effect, which enables participants to determine the nonstationary probabilistic nature of the task.

    “Pleskac (2008) observed that the sequential nature of the BART implies a learning effect, which enables participants to determine the nonstationary probablistic nature of the task.”
  • Alternative BART outcome measures have been used by other researchers.

    “It should also be noted that alternative BART outcome measures have been used by other researchers (e.g., Lejuez et al. 2003; Pleskac 2008) and our sample size prevented examination of potential sex or racial-ethnic differences.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pleskac, T. J.
Affiliations
Indiana University (US)
Corresponding author
Pleskac, Timothy J.
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
Published
2008
Volume
34
Issue
1
Pages
167-185
ISSN
  • 0278-7393 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1285
OpenAlex
W1980195663
Cited by
121
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 7
FWCI
2.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R21-DA14699)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH019879)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Leadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies
Keywords
decision making under risk, Bayesian learning, decision-making, mental representation, stochastic environments, risk-taking
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Association Learning, Bayes Theorem, Choice Behavior, Culture, Decision Making, Decision Theory, Female, Gambling, Humans, Individuality, Male, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Psychomotor Performance, Risk-Taking, Stochastic Processes, Health Behavior, Substance-Related Disorders

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review