↓ Skip to main content

Effects of different feedback types on information integration in repeated monetary gambles

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Effects of different feedback types on information integration in repeated monetary gambles
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01597
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Haffke, Ronald Hübner

Abstract

Most models of risky decision making assume that all relevant information is taken into account (e.g., von Neumann and Morgenstern, 1944; Kahneman and Tversky, 1979). However, there are also some models supposing that only part of the information is considered (e.g., Brandstätter et al., 2006; Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier, 2011). To further investigate the amount of information that is usually used for decision making, and how the use depends on feedback, we conducted a series of three experiments in which participants choose between two lotteries and where no feedback, outcome feedback, and error feedback was provided, respectively. The results show that without feedback participants mostly chose the lottery with the higher winning probability, and largely ignored the potential gains. The same results occurred when the outcome of each decision was fed back. Only after presenting error feedback (i.e., signaling whether a choice was optimal or not), participants considered probabilities as well as gains, resulting in more optimal choices. We propose that outcome feedback was ineffective, because of its probabilistic and ambiguous nature. Participants improve information integration only if provided with a consistent and deterministic signal such as error feedback.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 4%
Germany 1 4%
Switzerland 1 4%
Unknown 24 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 22%
Other 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Master 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 6 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 37%
Computer Science 2 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 7 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 26 January 2015.
All research outputs
#6,361,967
of 22,780,165 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#9,256
of 29,693 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,001
of 351,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#199
of 393 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,780,165 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,693 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 351,530 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 393 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.