tect: kacelnik package individual and group decision making under risk. are groups more or less...
Post on 20-Dec-2015
213 views
TRANSCRIPT
TECT: Kacelnik Package
Individual and group decision making under risk.
Are groups more or less efficient in handling risky decisions than individuals?
The Experimental Paradigm:
Risk it!
Choice Play Safe
Discrimination images
Confidence?RIRisk it?
Well done…You won 1…
OK
FeedbackSample
10%
20%
30%
90%
100%
…
Decisions and contingencies
Risk it! Play Safe
Correct identificationP
HIT Missed opportunity
Incorrect identification1-P
False Alarm
Correct rejection
Payoff P * (HIT) + (1-P) * (FA) P * (Miss) + (1-P) * (CR)
This matrix allows us to combine Signal Detection Theory and Metacognition, and to identify absolute, individual and group optimal strategies
CRMFAH
FACRP
Maximum expected payoff:Take a chance IFF:
Hit
False AlarmCorrect
Rejection
Miss
Our experimental paradigm results in estimates of:
1. Accuracy of metacognitive estimates.
2. Influence of metacognition on choice.
3. Non- conscious determinants of choice.
4. Whether groups differ (respect to individuals):
1. Accuracy of choice
2. Accuracy of self-appraisal
3. Risk appetite
4. Achieved pay off
Chance Safe
CorrectIncorrect
Miss
CRFA
Hit
Logistic regression of Outcome vs. Confidence, gives several parameters of self perception
0
0.5
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Confidence
P C
orr
ect
Cor
rect
?
Logistic regression of Decision Versus Confidence gives parameters of actual riskiness in behaviour
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Confidence
P G
am
ble
Too
k a
cha
nce
?
C*: Optimal Confidence Threshold
A perfectly consistent individual has one estimate of Pcorrect; below it, she plays safe, above it, she chances.
C*:the confidence above which a perfectly consistent individual should switch from playing safe to gambling in order to maximize payoff
C* results from a subject’s distribution of accuracy and confidence, but assumes total consistency, hence it is another theoretical yardstick against which to judge decision making aptitude.
270
290
310
330
350
370
390
410
430
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Confidence Threshold
Score
C*
God’s Dad
Normal discriminationPerfect judgementPerfect consistency
C*
Normal discriminationNormal judgementNormal consistencyExcellent confidence match