Cited by 199Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

A dual system model of preferences under risk

Mukherjee, Kanchan·2010·Psychological Review

Abstract

This article presents a dual system model (DSM) of decision making under risk and uncertainty according to which the value of a gamble is a combination of the values assigned to it independently by the affective and deliberative systems. On the basis of research on dual process theories and empirical research in Hsee and Rottenstreich (2004) and Rottenstreich and Hsee (2001) among others, the DSM incorporates (a) individual differences in disposition to rational versus emotional decision making, (b) the affective nature of outcomes, and (c) different task construals within its framework. The model has good descriptive validity and accounts for (a) violation of nontransparent stochastic dominance, (b) fourfold pattern of risk attitudes, (c) ambiguity aversion, (d) common consequence effect, (e) common ratio effect, (f) isolation effect, and (g) coalescing and event-splitting effects. The DSM is also used to make several novel predictions of conditions under which specific behavior patterns may or may not occur.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0017884

Cites

103 of 103 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Arousal states can habituate if appetitive behaviors become routine, leading to less potent gratification and a dampening of mesolimbic dopamine response over time.

    “As with autonomic function, arousal states can habituate if the appetitive behaviors become routine, leading to less potent gratification and a dampening of mesolimbic dopamine response over time.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 104 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mukherjee, K.
Affiliations
INSEAD (SG)
Corresponding author
Mukherjee, Kanchan
Venue
Psychological Review
Published
2010
Volume
117
Issue
1
Pages
243-255
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
OpenAlex
W1996734429
Cited by
198
References
104
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 10
FWCI
6.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Centre for Decision Making and Risk Analysis
  • INSEAD
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
dual-process models, decision making under risk, decision making under uncertainty, dual-process theory, ambiguity aversion, common ratio effect, isolation effect, preference elicitation
MeSH terms
Affect, Attitude, Choice Behavior, Decision Making, Humans, Models, Psychological, Risk-Taking

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