PONE-D-21-23927Keep your budget together! Investigating determinants on risky decision-making about losses.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wyszynski,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

I sent your manuscript to two experts in the field.  Both reviewers list a number of major issues that would need to be addressed before this paper is suitable for publication.  I am somewhat inclined to reject this paper, however I will offer you the opportunity to revise the manuscript if you think you can adequately address the reviewers' concerns.  One thing that I will specifically require for a revision is either an increase in the sample size, or a replication study.  Based on the reviews and my reading of the manuscript, I don't think it will be possible to draw meaningful conclusions from the data without additional data being collected.  If you don't think you can satisfactorily address the comments made by the reviewers, then you should probably consider submitting your paper to another journal.  If you do decide to revise the paper then I will examine it first, and then send it back to the original reviewers if I feel that it has been suitable revised for re-review.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 15 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Darrell A. Worthy, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf"

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this study, student subjects are asked to make very many choices between tiny gambles and their expected values. Standard theory predicts that they are indifferent and so whatever they do, is consistent with it.

The time limits are very strict. As a result, in “catch” trials, the dramatically less attractive option was chosen as often as 25% of the time. More generally, it is not clear why we should be interested in time limits here. If this is an attempt to test Stephens’ model, it seems misguided because we only have one interval in the experiment (only it’s longer or shorter).

As far as I can tell, the authors run regressions treating each subject-trial as one observation. Observations coming from the same individual are obviously not independent. Strictly speaking, there are thus only 27 independent observations. For example, at least 20 out of 27 subjects would have to make more risk-seeking choices in on framing than the other for the p value to be below 0.5.

My understanding is that the “needs” were payoff-irrelevant. How were they induced? I don’t know because the instructions are not provided.

Thus, generally speaking,

1 the choice of experimental variables is in my opinion poorly motivated,

2. the design of the study leaves limited space for meaningful inference

3. the study is grossly underpowered.

Minor issues:

p. 2 “Unusual disease” – It’s customary to refer to it as “Asian disease” instead. Is politically incorrect now? I can’t see how the use of this term implies anything wrong about the Asians. I understand the reasons not to name real diseases after geographic locations https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-020-0617-2 but none of them applies to an abstract, fictitious Asian Disease considered by T&K.

p. 6 “80 points were initial taken from the budget” -- ? should it be “initially”? anyway, I am not sure it’s the optimal term. It suggests that even more point are taken from the budget subsequently (in the same trial) which is not the case.

Figure 1 is confusing. Why do panels A and B have the same label? Same for panels C and D.

Reviewer #2: This study built off of previous gain-framed research (Diederich et al., 2020) to examine the interaction between framing effects, initial loss magnitude, probability, time limits, and need/a goal amount of points in loss contexts. Results showed that framing, probability, and need/goals influenced risky choice: individuals chose the riskier option more in loss-frames, when the initial loss magnitude was small, when the probability was high, and when need/a goal was included. Results also showed that shorter limits magnified the framing effect. This work has potential to advance our understanding of factors that influence risky decision-making, but there are some concerns on the framing of the Introduction, sample size, and some of the methodology.

Major:

(1) Most of the introduction is clear, and most of the hypotheses are clearly and logically generated from the reviewed literature. However, I am somewhat hesitant about using foraging behavior and the Stone-Geary utility framework to motivate some aspects of the study and H10. With foraging, there is an element of exploration, actual consumption, and/or energy expenditure that are absent in the study design. Similarly, the main premise that seems to be utilized about the Stone-Geary utility framework is the idea that consumers have a baseline level of consumption for goods that needs to be met before the utility of that good is influenced by consumer preferences. The application of the Stone-Geary utility framework does seem to have a direct 1:1 correspondence with the present study design. Instead, based on the methods description, it seems that ‘need’ is manipulated based on the goal or target amount participants are told to aim for. If this is the case, it seems that there is a relationship between need and goal/goal setting. The description of need in the manuscript is difficult to grasp in the context of the present study. A more concrete connection to the present’ study methodology and connection to goals/goal setting could make this clearer. The paper cited below is an example of goal setting and risk-taking that seems to align well with the present study design.

Schiebener, J., Wegmann, E., Pawlikowski, M., & Brand, M. (2014). Effects of goals on decisions under risk conditions: Goals can help to make better choices, but relatively high goals increase risk-taking. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26(4), 473-485.

(2) Sample size & Power analysis: The sample size seems extremely small. Please state the effect sizes observed in Diederich et al. that were used in the power analysis. What hypotheses were the power analyses conducted for? What statistical analysis was the power analysis modeled off of (e.g., t-test, correlations, regression, etc)? While the within-subjects design is a strength of the study, a larger sample size or replication study would strengthen the conclusions drawn from study.

(3) “Finally, we included two response time limits: 1 second or 3 seconds for a given block of trials.” How was this time limit calculated? In other words, what is the scientific evidence to show that 1 and 3 seconds are appropriate time limits? Was there a pilot test to determine average response time, and time limits were adjusted from there? Or, something else? I can see that these are the time limits used in the authors’ previous paper (Diederich et al., 2020), but the evidence for these time limits is not specified in this previous paper either.

(4) Results: were outliers screened for in the Figure 3 analysis? Visually, it looks like there may be an outlier in the decisions about gains graph.

Minor:

• The idea of calling the initial amount of points a budget is a bit of a stretch. Budgeting with low-stakes points does not seem to have sufficient external validity to truly call it a budget.

• “Responses to a triple were collapsed for evaluation.” I don’t understand what this means.

• The level of detail in the Apparatus section isn’t essential to understanding the study given that figures are provided.

• In general, the methods are difficult to follow and could be improved with better organization and distinctive subheadings for each manipulation (frames, time limits, need levels, etc).

• Discussion: a conclusion paragraph would be helpful

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Keep your budget together! Investigating determinants on risky decision-making about losses.

PONE-D-21-23927R1

Dear Dr. Wyszynski,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

I sent your manuscript back to one of the original reviewers and the reviewer felt all previous comments had been addressed.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Darrell A. Worthy, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors have been significant changes that have improved the manuscript, including increasing the sample size from 28 to 44 participants, reporting the effect size used for sample size determination, reorganizing the method section, and adding a conclusion paragraph to the Discussion section.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No