We separate for the first time the roles of cognitive and motivational factors in shaping age differences in decision making under risk. Younger and older adults completed gain, loss, and mixed-domain choice problems as well as measures of cognitive functioning and affect. The older adults’ decision quality was lower than the younger adults’ in the loss domain, and this age difference was attributable to the older adults’ lower cognitive abilities. In addition, the older adults chose the more risky option more often than the younger adults in the gain and mixed domains; this difference in risk aversion was attributable to less pronounced negative affect among the older adults. Computational modeling with a hierarchical Bayesian implementation of cumulative prospect theory revealed that the older adults had higher response noise and more optimistic decision weights for gains than did the younger adults. Moreover, the older adults showed no loss aversion, a finding that supports a positivity-focus (rather than a loss-prevention) view of motivational reorientation in older age.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.
2.
BestR.CharnessN. (2015). Age differences in the effect of framing on risky choice: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 30, 688–698.
3.
BroomellS. B.BhatiaS. (2014). Parameter recovery for decision modeling using choice data. Decision, 1, 252–274.
4.
BurksS. V.CarpenterJ. P.GoetteL.RustichiniA. (2009). Cognitive skills affect economic preferences, strategic behavior, and job attachment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 106, 7745–7750.
5.
ChouK.-L.LeeT. M. C.HoA. H. Y. (2007). Does mood state change risk taking tendency in older adults?Psychology and Aging, 22, 310–318.
6.
DeppingM. K.FreundA. M. (2012). Normal aging and decision making: The role of motivation. Human Development, 54, 349–367.
7.
DieckmannN. F.PetersE.BakerD.LeonJ.BenavidesM.NorrisA. (2015). The role of objective numeracy and fluid intelligence in sex-related protective behaviors. Current HIV Research, 13, 337–346.
8.
DohmenT.FalkA.HuffmanD.SundeU. (2010). Are risk aversion and impatience related to cognitive ability?American Economic Review, 100, 1238–1260.
9.
ForgasJ. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The Affect Infusion Model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117, 39–66.
10.
GlöcknerA.PachurT. (2012). Cognitive models of risky choice: Parameter stability and predictive accuracy of prospect theory. Cognition, 123, 21–32.
11.
GonzalezR.WuG. (1999). On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 129–166.
12.
GrühnD.Kotter-GrühnD.RöckeC. (2010). Discrete affects across the adult lifespan: Evidence for multidimensionality and multidirectionality of affective experiences in young, middle-aged and older adults. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 492–500.
13.
HartshorneJ. K.GermineL. T. (2015). When does cognitive functioning peak? The asynchronous rise and fall of different cognitive abilities across the life span. Psychological Science, 26, 433–443.
14.
HenningerD. E.MaddenD. J.HuettelS. A. (2010). Processing speed and memory mediate age-related differences in decision making. Psychology and Aging, 25, 262–270.
15.
HessT. M. (2015). A prospect theory-based evaluation of dual-process influences on aging and decision making: Support for a contextual perspective. In HessT. M.StroughJ.LöckenhoffC. (Eds.), Aging and decision making: Empirical and applied perspectives (pp. 189–212). New York, NY: Elsevier.
16.
JosefA. K.RichterD.Samanez-LarkinG. R.WagnerG. G.HertwigR.MataR. (2016). Stability and change in risk-taking propensity across the adult life span. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 430–450.
17.
KunzmannU.LittleT. D.SmithJ. (2000). Is age-related stability of subjective well-being a paradox? Cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence from the Berlin Aging Study. Psychology and Aging, 15, 511–526.
18.
LehrlS. (1977). Mehrfachwahl-Wortschatz-Test-B: MWT-B [Multiple-choice vocabulary-based test of intelligence]. Erlangen, Germany: Straube.
19.
LernerJ. S.KeltnerD. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 146–159.
20.
LiY.BaldassiM.JohnsonE. J.WeberE. U. (2013). Complementary cognitive capabilities, economic decision making and aging. Psychology and Aging, 28, 595–613.
21.
LipkusI. M.SamsaG.RimerB. K. (2001). General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Medical Decision Making, 21, 37–44.
22.
MataR.HertwigR. (2011). How to model age-related motivational reorientations in risky choice: Commentary on Depping and Freund. Human Development, 54, 368–375.
23.
MataR.JosefA. K.Samanez-LarkinG. R.HertwigR. (2011). Age differences in risky choice: A meta-analysis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1235, 18–29.
24.
MatherM. (2016). The affective neuroscience of aging. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 213–238.
25.
MatherM.CarstensenL. L. (2005). Aging and motivated cognition: The positivity effect in attention and memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 496–502.
26.
MatherM.MazarN.GorlickM. A.LighthallN. R.BurgenoJ.SchoekeA.ArielyD. (2012). Risk preferences and aging: The “certainty effect” in older adults’ decision making. Psychology and Aging, 27, 801–816.
27.
ParkD. C.LautenschlagerG.HeddenT.DavidsonN. S.SmithA. D.SmithP. K. (2002). Models of visuospatial and verbal memory across the adult life span. Psychology and Aging, 17, 299–320.
28.
PetersE.HessT. M.VästfjällD.AumanC. (2007). Adult age differences in dual information processes: Implications for the role of affective and deliberative processes in older adults’ decision making. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 1–23.
29.
RieskampJ. (2008). The probabilistic nature of preferential choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1446–1465.
30.
RottenstreichY.ShuS. (2004). The connections between affect and decision making: Nine resulting phenomena. In KoehlerD. J.HarveyN. (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 444–463). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
31.
RutledgeR. B.SmittenaarP.ZeidmanP.BrownH. R.AdamsR. A.LindenbergerU.. . . DolanR. J. (2016). Risk taking for potential rewards decreases across the lifespan. Current Biology, 26, 1634–1639.
32.
ScheibehenneB.PachurT. (2015). Using Bayesian hierarchical parameter estimation to assess the generalizability of cognitive models of choice. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 391–407.
33.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.
34.
TymulaA.BelmakerL. A. R.RudermanL.GlimcherP. W.LevyI. (2013). Like cognitive function, decision making across the life span shows profound age-related changes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 110, 17143–17148.
35.
VaupelJ. W. (2010). Biodemography of human ageing. Nature, 464, 536–542.
36.
WeberE. U.ShafirS.BlaisA.-R. (2004). Predicting risk sensitivity in humans and lower animals: Risk as variance or coefficient of variation. Psychological Review, 111, 430–445.
37.
WechslerD. (1981). WAIS-R manual: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. New York, NY: Psychological Corp.
38.
WellerJ. A.LevinI. P.DenburgN. L. (2010). Trajectory of risky decision making for potential gains and losses from ages 5 to 85. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24, 331–344.
39.
WhitneyP.RinehartC. A.HinsonJ. M. (2008). Framing effects under cognitive load: The role of working memory in risky decisions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 1179–1184.
40.
YechiamE.HochmanG. (2013). Losses as modulators of attention: Review and analysis of the unique effects of losses over gains. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 497–518.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
