In risky decision making, whether decision makers follow an expectation rule as hypothesised by mainstream theories is a compelling question. To tackle this question and enrich our knowledge of the underlying mechanism of risky decision making, we developed a series of new experimental paradigms that directly examined the computation processes to systematically investigate the process of risky decision making and explore the boundary condition of expectation rule over the course of a decade. In this article, we introduce these methods and review behavioural, eye-tracking, event-related potential, and functional magnetic resonance imaging studies that employed these methods. Results of these studies consistently showed that decision makers in the single-application condition did not perform the weighting and summing process assumed by the expectation rule. Moreover, decision makers were inclined to adopt a non-compensatory strategy, such as a heuristic one, in risky decision making. Furthermore, results indicated that the expectation rule was only applicable for conditions that involved decisions applied to numerous events (multiple applications) or to people (everyone). The findings indicated that using an index based on expected value to prescribe human risk preferences appears to be an artificial or false index of risk preference, and emphasised a new methodological direction for risky decision-making research.

中文翻译：

---

旧问题的新范例：挑战风险决策理论所持有的期望规则

在风险决策中，决策者是否遵循主流理论所假设的期望规则是一个令人信服的问题。为了解决这个问题并丰富我们对风险决策的潜在机制的认识，我们开发了一系列新的实验范式，它们直接检查了计算过程，以系统地调查风险决策的过程，并探索期望规则在边界上的边界条件。十年的过程。在本文中，我们介绍了这些方法，并回顾了使用这些方法的行为，眼动追踪，事件相关电位以及功能性磁共振成像研究。这些研究结果一致表明，在单一应用条件下，决策者没有执行期望规则所假设的加权和求和过程。此外，决策者倾向于在风险决策中采用非补偿性策略，例如启发式策略。此外，结果表明，期望规则仅适用于涉及适用于众多事件（多次应用）或适用于人员（所有人）的决策的条件。研究结果表明，使用基于期望值的指数来规定人的风险偏好似乎是人为或错误的风险偏好指数，并强调了风险决策研究的新方法论方向。例如启发式的决策。此外，结果表明，期望规则仅适用于涉及适用于众多事件（多次应用）或适用于人员（所有人）的决策的条件。研究结果表明，使用基于期望值的指数来规定人的风险偏好似乎是人为或错误的风险偏好指数，并强调了风险决策研究的新方法论方向。例如启发式的决策。此外，结果表明，期望规则仅适用于涉及适用于众多事件（多次应用）或适用于人员（所有人）的决策的条件。研究结果表明，使用基于期望值的指数来规定人的风险偏好似乎是人为或错误的风险偏好指数，并强调了风险决策研究的新方法论方向。