Disentangling choice value and choice conflict in sequential decisions under risk
Fig 2
A: Example of two rounds of the ‘pig’ dice game, the top one ending with a decision to stop and a reward of 130, the bottom one ending because of a rolled 1 and with no reward. B: Probability of stopping (shaded areas) as a function of the cumulative sum within a round for a simulated risk-neutral player. The IPs (dashed lines) for the 1/6, 2/6, and 3/6 conditions are, respectively: 40, 85, and 200. C: Percentage of decisions before and after the IP for a simulated group of players with different risk preferences (risk neutral on average). The number of decisions made after reaching the IP increases with the probability of losing, making the task more balanced. D: Percentage of decisions made after the IP as a function of the IP itself, for the same group of simulated participants as in C. Participants with higher IPs (more risk seeking) experience a more imbalanced task in the 2/6 and 1/6 conditions.