↓ Skip to main content

Genetic Factors of Individual Differences in Decision Making in Economic Behavior: A Japanese Twin Study using the Allais Problem

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Genetic Factors of Individual Differences in Decision Making in Economic Behavior: A Japanese Twin Study using the Allais Problem
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01712
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chizuru Shikishima, Kai Hiraishi, Shinji Yamagata, Juko Ando, Mitsuhiro Okada

Abstract

Why does decision making differ among individuals? People sometimes make seemingly inconsistent decisions with lower expected (monetary) utility even when objective information of probabilities and reward are provided. It is noteworthy, however, that a certain proportion of people do not provide anomalous responses, choosing the alternatives with higher expected utility, thus appearing to be more "rational." We investigated the genetic and environmental influences on these types of individual differences in decision making using a classical Allais problem task. Participants were 1,199 Japanese adult twins aged 20-47. Univariate genetic analysis revealed that approximately a third of the Allais problem response variance was explained by genetic factors and the rest by environmental factors unique to individuals and measurement error. The environmental factor shared between families did not contribute to the variance. Subsequent multivariate genetic analysis clarified that decision making using the expected utility theory was associated with general intelligence and that the association was largely mediated by the same genetic factor. We approach the mechanism underlying two types of "rational" decision making from the perspective of genetic correlations with cognitive abilities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Professor 1 4%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 3 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 31%
Neuroscience 3 12%
Social Sciences 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 6 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 07 June 2023.
All research outputs
#4,657,189
of 25,363,868 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#7,862
of 34,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,945
of 292,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#128
of 484 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,363,868 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,393 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 292,101 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 484 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.