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

Chizuru Shikishima, Kai Hiraishi, Shinji Yamagata, Juko Ando, Mitsuhiro Okada
Author Information
  1. Chizuru Shikishima: Department of Psychology, Faculty of Liberal Arts, Teikyo University Tokyo, Japan.
  2. Kai Hiraishi: Faculty of Letters, Keio University Tokyo, Japan.
  3. Shinji Yamagata: Faculty of Arts and Science, Kyushu University Fukuoka, Japan.
  4. Juko Ando: Faculty of Letters, Keio University Tokyo, Japan.
  5. Mitsuhiro Okada: Faculty of Letters, Keio University Tokyo, Japan.

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.

Keywords

References

  1. Twin Res Hum Genet. 2006 Dec;9(6):811-6 [PMID: 17254414]
  2. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Oct 2;104(40):15631-4 [PMID: 17909184]
  3. J Econ Perspect. 2011 Fall;25(4):57-82 [PMID: 22427719]
  4. Twin Res Hum Genet. 2013 Feb;16(1):202-16 [PMID: 23394192]
  5. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Mar 11;105(10):3721-6 [PMID: 18316737]
  6. Behav Genet. 2001 May;31(3):243-73 [PMID: 11699599]
  7. Brief Bioinform. 2002 Jun;3(2):119-33 [PMID: 12139432]
  8. Can J Psychiatry. 2001 Apr;46(3):225-33 [PMID: 11320676]
  9. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008 Apr;94(4):672-95 [PMID: 18361678]
  10. Acta Genet Med Gemellol (Roma). 1990;39(1):109-15 [PMID: 2392887]
  11. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009 Jun;1167:66-75 [PMID: 19580554]
  12. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2010 Jan 27;365(1538):249-57 [PMID: 20026463]
  13. Behav Brain Sci. 2000 Oct;23(5):645-65; discussion 665-726 [PMID: 11301544]
  14. Psychol Sci. 2014 Sep;25(9):1699-711 [PMID: 25037961]
  15. Science. 1981 May 29;212(4498):1055-9 [PMID: 7195071]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0geneticdecisionmakingexpectedutilityAllaisenvironmentalusingproblemtheorytypesJapaneseanalysisvariancefactorsfactorcognitivedifferamongindividuals?Peoplesometimesmakeseeminglyinconsistentdecisionslowermonetaryevenobjectiveinformationprobabilitiesrewardprovidednoteworthyhowevercertainproportionpeopleprovideanomalousresponseschoosingalternativeshigherthusappearing"rational"investigatedinfluencesindividualdifferencesclassicaltaskParticipants1199adulttwinsaged20-47UnivariaterevealedapproximatelythirdresponseexplainedrestuniqueindividualsmeasurementerrorsharedfamiliescontributeSubsequentmultivariateclarifiedassociatedgeneralintelligenceassociationlargelymediatedapproachmechanismunderlyingtwo"rational"perspectivecorrelationsabilitiesGeneticFactorsIndividualDifferencesDecisionMakingEconomicBehavior:TwinStudyProblembehavioralgeneticsabilityprospecttwin

Similar Articles

Cited By