title: Contextual factors explain risk-seeking preferences in rhesus monkeys.
abstract: In contrast to humans and most other animals, rhesus macaques strongly prefer risky rewards to safe ones with similar expected value. Why macaques prefer risk while other animals typically avoid it remains puzzling and challenges the idea that monkeys provide a model for human economic behavior. Here we argue that monkeys' risk-seeking preferences are neither mysterious nor unique. Risk-seeking in macaques is possibly induced by specific elements of the tasks that have been used to measure their risk preferences. The most important of these elements are (1) very small stakes, (2) serially repeated gambles with short delays between trials, and (3) task parameters that are learned through experience, not described verbally. Together, we hypothesize that these features will readily induce risk-seeking in monkeys, humans, and rats. Thus, elements of task design that are often ignored when comparing studies of risk attitudes can easily overwhelm basal risk preferences. More broadly, these results highlight the fundamental importance of understanding the psychological basis of economic decisions in interpreting preference data and corresponding neural measures.
authors: Department of Pharmacology and Physiology, University of Rochester Medical Center Rochester, NY, USA.
authors: Sarah R
authors: SR
authors: Heilbronner
authors: Benjamin Y
authors: BY
authors: Hayden
keywords: gambling; macaque; neuroeconomics; risk; uncertainty
references: Nat Neurosci. 2004 Apr;7(4):404-10
references: 15004564
references: J Neurosci. 2011 Mar 16;31(11):4178-87
references: 21411658
references: Psychol Sci. 2004 Aug;15(8):534-9
references: 15270998
references: Psychol Sci. 2007 Dec;18(12):1099-105
references: 18031418
references: Neuron. 2010 Nov 18;68(4):789-800
references: 21092866
references: Eur J Neurosci. 2010 Apr;31(8):1492-500
references: 20384776
references: Curr Biol. 2007 Jan 9;17(1):49-53
references: 17208186
references: J Exp Anal Behav. 2005 Nov;84(3):555-79
references: 16596980
references: Nat Neurosci. 2005 Sep;8(9):1129-30
references: 16127442
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 1997 Nov;1(8):304-9
references: 21223933
references: Neuron. 2009 Jul 16;63(1):119-26
references: 19607797
references: Judgm Decis Mak. 2009 Jun 1;4(4):256-272
references: 24179560
references: Curr Biol. 2009 Sep 29;19(18):1532-7
references: 19733074
references: Nature. 2006 Jun 15;441(7095):876-9
references: 16778890
references: Front Neurosci. 2010 Sep 17;4:
references: 20922060
references: PLoS One. 2009;4(1):e4156
references: 19142220
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1999 Mar;25(2):418-27
references: 10093208
references: Nat Neurosci. 2005 Sep;8(9):1220-7
references: 16116449
references: Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2009 Dec;4(4):346-56
references: 19553236
references: Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2005 Oct;25(2):416-30
references: 16095886
references: J Neurophysiol. 2010 Nov;104(5):2634-53
references: 20739596
references: Anim Cogn. 2009 Jan;12(1):201-7
references: 18719953
references: Behav Processes. 2011 Sep;88(1):44-6
references: 21801819
references: Neuron. 2008 Oct 9;60(1):19-25
references: 18940585
references: Psychol Rev. 2004 Apr;111(2):430-45
references: 15065916
references: Judgm Decis Mak. 2008 Jun 1;3(5):389-395
references: 19844596
references: Biol Lett. 2008 Jun 23;4(3):246-9
references: 18364305
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2009 Dec;13(12):517-23
references: 19836292
references: Front Neurosci. 2012 Jul 12;6:105
references: 22807893
references: Science. 2003 Mar 21;299(5614):1898-902
references: 12649484
references: Front Neurosci. 2011 Apr 19;5:55
references: 21541308
references: Nature. 1999 Jul 15;400(6741):233-8
references: 10421364