The affect gap in risky choice is similar for younger and older adults.

IF 3.5 1区 心理学 Q1 GERONTOLOGY
Psychology and Aging Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-05-05 DOI:10.1037/pag0000889
Colleen C Frank, Thorsten Pachur
{"title":"The affect gap in risky choice is similar for younger and older adults.","authors":"Colleen C Frank, Thorsten Pachur","doi":"10.1037/pag0000889","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While risky decision making is often studied using decisions with relatively affect-poor outcomes (typically moderate amounts of money), many decisions in the real world elicit higher levels of affect (e.g., medical decisions). Research suggests that choices diverge between relatively affect-rich decisions and relatively affect-poor monetary decisions. However, it is unknown to what extent this \"affect gap\" holds in older adults, who make some of the most consequential medical and financial decisions among the population and have been shown to process affect differently than younger adults. In the present study, we compared decision quality and risk attitude in affect-rich choice problems (with medical side effects as possible outcomes) to that in structurally identical and economically matched affect-poor choice problems (with monetary losses as possible outcomes) in 100 older (aged 65-80 years, <i>M</i> = 69.7) and 100 younger (aged 18-29 years, <i>M</i> = 23.5) adults. Replicating previous findings on the affect gap, individuals were more risk averse (odds ratio [<i>OR</i>] = 1.52) and made worse quality decisions (<i>OR</i> = 2.13) for affect-rich than for affect-poor problems. Importantly, this pattern emerged very similarly for younger and older adults. Computational modeling with cumulative prospect theory indicated that participants tended to weight probability information less strongly for affect-rich than for affect-poor choices, regardless of age. Yet, while younger adults were more sensitive to differences in affect-rich than in affect-poor outcomes, older adults showed similar sensitivity to differences in affect-rich and affect-poor outcomes. These findings demonstrate the robustness of the affect gap across age groups and have implications for risk communication. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48426,"journal":{"name":"Psychology and Aging","volume":" ","pages":"575-582"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology and Aging","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000889","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While risky decision making is often studied using decisions with relatively affect-poor outcomes (typically moderate amounts of money), many decisions in the real world elicit higher levels of affect (e.g., medical decisions). Research suggests that choices diverge between relatively affect-rich decisions and relatively affect-poor monetary decisions. However, it is unknown to what extent this "affect gap" holds in older adults, who make some of the most consequential medical and financial decisions among the population and have been shown to process affect differently than younger adults. In the present study, we compared decision quality and risk attitude in affect-rich choice problems (with medical side effects as possible outcomes) to that in structurally identical and economically matched affect-poor choice problems (with monetary losses as possible outcomes) in 100 older (aged 65-80 years, M = 69.7) and 100 younger (aged 18-29 years, M = 23.5) adults. Replicating previous findings on the affect gap, individuals were more risk averse (odds ratio [OR] = 1.52) and made worse quality decisions (OR = 2.13) for affect-rich than for affect-poor problems. Importantly, this pattern emerged very similarly for younger and older adults. Computational modeling with cumulative prospect theory indicated that participants tended to weight probability information less strongly for affect-rich than for affect-poor choices, regardless of age. Yet, while younger adults were more sensitive to differences in affect-rich than in affect-poor outcomes, older adults showed similar sensitivity to differences in affect-rich and affect-poor outcomes. These findings demonstrate the robustness of the affect gap across age groups and have implications for risk communication. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

年轻人和老年人在风险选择上的影响差距是相似的。
虽然研究风险决策通常使用影响相对较差的结果(通常是适量的钱)的决策,但现实世界中的许多决策会引发更高水平的影响(例如,医疗决策)。研究表明,选择在影响相对丰富的决策和影响相对较差的货币决策之间存在分歧。然而,目前尚不清楚这种“情感差距”在老年人中存在多大程度,老年人在人群中做出一些最重要的医疗和财务决定,并且已被证明处理情感的方式与年轻人不同。在本研究中,我们比较了100名老年人(65-80岁,M = 69.7)和100名年轻人(18-29岁,M = 23.5)在情感丰富的选择问题(可能的结果是医疗副作用)和在结构相同和经济匹配的情感不足的选择问题(可能的结果是金钱损失)中的决策质量和风险态度。重复先前关于情感差距的研究结果,个体在情感丰富的问题上比在情感贫乏的问题上更倾向于规避风险(比值比[OR] = 1.52),做出更差的质量决策(OR = 2.13)。重要的是,这种模式在年轻人和老年人身上的表现非常相似。基于累积前景理论的计算模型表明,与年龄无关,参与者倾向于在情感丰富的选择中对概率信息的权重低于情感贫乏的选择。然而,尽管年轻人对情感丰富的结果比对情感贫乏的结果的差异更敏感,老年人对情感丰富和情感贫乏的结果的差异也表现出类似的敏感性。这些发现证明了跨年龄组的影响差距的稳健性,并对风险沟通具有启示意义。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
10.80%
发文量
97
期刊介绍: Psychology and Aging publishes original articles on adult development and aging. Such original articles include reports of research that may be applied, biobehavioral, clinical, educational, experimental (laboratory, field, or naturalistic studies), methodological, or psychosocial. Although the emphasis is on original research investigations, occasional theoretical analyses of research issues, practical clinical problems, or policy may appear, as well as critical reviews of a content area in adult development and aging. Clinical case studies that have theoretical significance are also appropriate. Brief reports are acceptable with the author"s agreement not to submit a full report to another journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信