In a hurry, people chose safety for gains and risk for losses
In two lab experiments with young adults, 37 and 36 participants returned to the option they had chosen more often as rounds went on.
The key idea
Across rounds, the most frequently chosen option gained weight, while time pressure pushed choices in opposite directions for gains and losses.
The study, in plain language
In a quick choice between two lotteries, the response depended on more than how much could be won or lost. The team also examined whether earlier choices began to serve as a shortcut for deciding again.
When gains were at stake, time pressure shifted choices toward the safe option, even when it was not the option previously chosen most often. When losses were at stake, time pressure was associated with more risky choices. As rounds went on, both experiments showed a growing tendency to choose the option selected more often. Time pressure and repetition left different marks on the same kind of decision.
What they found
- As rounds increased, people tended to repeat the option they had chosen more often.
- With a possible gain, time pressure increased safe choices.
- With a possible loss, time pressure increased risky choices.
Something to think about
When you choose the same thing repeatedly, like the same meal or route, do you decide each time or use a shortcut? And under time pressure, does your choice change depending on whether you might gain or lose?
How they studied it
Two lab experiments in the Netherlands repeated choices between two lotteries with young adults: one involving gains and one losses. Both compared decisions under different levels of time pressure.
What the study cannot show
- The tests involved small groups of young adults and lottery options, not everyday financial decisions.
- The study does not predict which asset a person will choose or advise taking or avoiding risk.
The original study
Investigating the origin and consequences of endogenous default options in repeated economic choices
Source under CC BY 4.0. English adaptation and explanation by PaperFlow, with AI assistance. The text has been reorganized for a general audience; it is not the complete paper and does not imply endorsement by its authors.
One study alone does not represent a field's consensus. Educational content does not replace professional advice. Report a possible error.
