↓ Skip to main content

Risky business: rhesus monkeys exhibit persistent preferences for risky options

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Risky business: rhesus monkeys exhibit persistent preferences for risky options
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00258
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eric R. Xu, Jerald D. Kralik

Abstract

Rhesus monkeys have been shown to prefer risky over safe options in experiential decision-making tasks. These findings might be due, however, to specific contextual factors, such as small amounts of fluid reward and minimal costs for risk-taking. To better understand the factors affecting decision-making under risk in rhesus monkeys, we tested multiple factors designed to increase the stakes including larger reward amounts, distinct food items rather than fluid reward, a smaller number of trials per session, and risky options with greater variation that also included non-rewarded outcomes. We found a consistent preference for risky options, except when the expected value of the safe option was greater than the risky option. Thus, with equivalent mean utilities between the safe and risky options, rhesus monkeys appear to have a robust preference for the risky options in a broad range of circumstances, akin to the preferences found in human children and some adults in similar tasks. One account for this result is that monkeys make their choices based on the salience of the largest payoff, without integrating likelihood and value across trials. A related idea is that they fail to override an impulsive tendency to select the option with the potential to obtain the highest possible outcome. Our results rule out strict versions of both accounts and contribute to an understanding of the diversity of risky decision-making among primates.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hungary 1 3%
Germany 1 3%
Romania 1 3%
Unknown 36 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 26%
Researcher 9 23%
Student > Master 4 10%
Professor 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 33%
Neuroscience 4 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 12 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 May 2014.
All research outputs
#14,887,321
of 24,943,708 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#14,793
of 33,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,737
of 232,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#175
of 310 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,943,708 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,669 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 232,679 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 310 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.