Abstract:Risk source plays an important role in risky decision making. Unlike “lottery risk” that arises from a stochastic process, “person-based risk” is originated from others’ decisions. Bohnet and Zeckhauser (2004) first studied the effect of risk source on risk preference using “trust game” task in which participants were asked to assign their “minimum acceptable probabilities (MAPs)” for securing the higher payoff, so as to make themselves just incline to the risky option from the sure one. It was found that the MAPs were generally higher when the occurrence of a certain outcome was determined by other person rather than a stochastic process. This phenomenon was named “betrayal aversion”. Nevertheless, Fetchenhauer and Dunning (2012) obtained quite different findings: participants were significantly more willing to choose the risky option in trust game than in lottery game when they were informed that their chance of drawing a white ball or interacting with a trustworthy person was about 50%. These inconsistent findings hint the necessity of undermining the causes of “betrayal aversion”. Hence the present study is to investigate how risk source and need for affiliation affect risky decision-making. In participants face a binary-choice trust game with two options: a certain option in which both the participant and the anonymous partner would earn ￥ 10 for sure, and a risky one in which the participant may have a “good” outcome (with probability of 50%, participant and partner would earn ￥ 15 respectively) or a “bad” outcome (50% probability, participant earns ￥ 8 and the partner earns ￥ 22). A between-subject design used to explore the effects of risk sources. In “lottery risk” condition, whether the risky outcome would be 15) 22) is depended on a lottery mechanism. In “person-based risk” condition, the outcome distribution depends on the partner’s choice. Participants in Experiment 1 were asked to calibrate their MAPs which could represent their risk preferences. In Experiment 2, participants were asked to choose between the certain option and the risky one directly. After that, their needs for affiliation were measured. The results of Experiment 1 showed that participants are more risk-averse when the outcome is determined by an anonymous partner rather than a lottery mechanism. Experiment 2 found that participants who have low-need for affiliation are betrayal averse, while people with high-need for affiliation prefer lottery risk and person-based risk the same. In between-subject experiments were designed to investigate further the effect of need for affiliation on decision-making by arousing the emotion of fear that was induced through watching a horror video in Experiment 3 or describing a frightening scenario in detail in Experiment 4. When emotion of fear aroused, individuals were found more risk-averse under lottery risk, but more risk-seeking under person-based risk. In other words, the betrayal aversion phenomenon even reversed when under fear. It was also found that the need for affiliation acts as a mediator between fear and risky decision making. The findings of “betrayal aversion” and “reversed betrayal aversion” suggested that risk sources are critical to risky decision making. Not only the probabilities but also the risk sources should be considered in evaluation of utility. Compared with the decision making under lottery risk, decision under person-based risk is more complicated. When trust is violated, people may experience betrayal costs. On the contrary, if the partner is trustworthy, people may reap extra psychological benefits such as satisfying the need for affiliation. This study deepened our understanding of trust and betrayal. To encourage trust, it is important to diminish the material costs of betrayal and to emphasize the warmth of interpersonal interaction as well.

Good fortune but bad luck? Predictable versus unpredictable gains and losses in risky choice

Why Can't We Accurately Predict Others' Decisions? Prediction Discrepancy in Risky Decision-Making

Riskier for Me or for Others? the Role of Domain and Probability in Self-Other Differences, in Risky Decision-Making

Enjoying the present or saving for the future: the influence of luck perception on intertemporal choice

Are decisions under risk malleable?

Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risk-Preference in Dynamic Repeated Decision-Making

Good luck or bad luck? The influence of social comparison on risk‐taking decision and the underlying neural mechanism

How the Risky Features of Previous Selection Affect Subsequent Decision-Making: Evidence from Behavioral and Fmri Measures

The Ending Effect in the Domain of Gambling: The Effect of Gain-Loss Status on Economic Decision-Making

Limited resources or limited luck? Why people perceive an illusory negative correlation between the outcomes of choice options despite unequivocal evidence for independence

A closer examination of the risk–reward correlation: an individual-level analysis and exploration in the loss domain

Probabilistic Outcomes Are Valued Less in Expectation, Even Conditional on Their Realization

The same but different: an empirical investigation of the reducibility principle

Risk source matters much in decision-making:Betrayal aversion and the role of need for affiliation

Decision-making after Continuous Wins or Losses in a Randomized Guessing Task: Implications for How the Prior Selection Results Affect Subsequent Decision-Making

Optimistic Risk Perception in the Temporal Difference error Explains the Relation between Risk-taking, Gambling, Sensation-seeking and Low Fear

Reference-Point Theory: An Account of Individual Differences in Risk Preferences

Unexpected but Incidental Positive Outcomes Predict Real-World Gambling

Do incidental positive emotions induce more optimistic expectations of decision outcomes? An empirical study from the perspective of event-related potential

Risk Perception And Risky Choice: Situational, Informational And Dispositional Effects

Effects of Experienced Regret on Risky Decision Making Are Dependent on Risky Degree