Can Personality Type Explain Heterogeneity in Probability Distortions?

C Monica Capra, Bing Jiang, Jan B Engelmann, Gregory S Berns
Author Information
  1. C Monica Capra: Department of Economics and Center for Neuropolicy, Emory University.
  2. Bing Jiang: Department of Economics and Business, Virginia Military Institute.
  3. Jan B Engelmann: Laboratory for Social and Neural Systems Research, Department of Economics, University of Zurich, Switzerland.
  4. Gregory S Berns: Department of Economics and Center for Neuropolicy, Emory University.

Abstract

There are two regularities we have learned from experimental studies of choice under risk. The first is that the majority of people weigh objective probabilities non-linearly. The second regularity, although less commonly acknowledged, is that there is a large amount of heterogeneity in how people distort probabilities. Despite of this, little effort has been made to identify the source of heterogeneity. In this paper, we explore the possibility that personality type is linked to probability distortions. Using validated psychological questionnaires, we clustered participants into distinct personality types: motivated, impulsive, and affective. We found that the motivated viewed gambling more attractive, whereas the impulsive were the most capable of discriminating non-extreme probabilities. Our results suggest that the observed heterogeneity in probability distortions may be explained by personality profiles, which can be elicited though standard psychological questionnaires.

Keywords

References

  1. PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e27633 [PMID: 22140453]
  2. Psychol Sci. 2010 Jun;21(6):820-8 [PMID: 20435951]
  3. Neuroreport. 2005 Nov 28;16(17):1905-8 [PMID: 16272876]
  4. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2012 Jun;7(5):557-67 [PMID: 22563008]
  5. Cogn Psychol. 1999 Feb;38(1):129-66 [PMID: 10090801]
  6. Science. 2002 Jun 21;296(5576):2191 [PMID: 12077407]
  7. Psychol Sci. 2001 May;12(3):185-90 [PMID: 11437299]
  8. PLoS One. 2009;4(3):e4957 [PMID: 19308261]
  9. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Nov 8;102(45):16502-6 [PMID: 16275930]
  10. J Clin Psychol. 1995 Nov;51(6):768-74 [PMID: 8778124]
  11. Nat Neurosci. 2009 Jan;12(1):32-4 [PMID: 19029888]
  12. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Mar 15;102(11):4209-14 [PMID: 15753321]
  13. Neuropsychologia. 2009 Jan;47(2):599-603 [PMID: 19010338]

Grants

  1. R01 DA016434/NIDA NIH HHS
  2. R01 DA025045/NIDA NIH HHS
  3. T32 DA015040/NIDA NIH HHS

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0personalityprobabilitiesheterogeneityprobabilityriskpeopledistortionspsychologicalquestionnairesmotivatedimpulsivetworegularitieslearnedexperimentalstudieschoicefirstmajorityweighobjectivenon-linearlysecondregularityalthoughlesscommonlyacknowledgedlargeamountdistortDespitelittleeffortmadeidentifysourcepaperexplorepossibilitytypelinkedUsingvalidatedclusteredparticipantsdistincttypes:affectivefoundviewedgamblingattractivewhereascapablediscriminatingnon-extremeresultssuggestobservedmayexplainedprofilescanelicitedthoughstandardCanPersonalityTypeExplainHeterogeneityProbabilityDistortions?choiceexperimentsweightingfunction

Similar Articles

Cited By (4)