I'm a little wary of the fact that the "adult" category only consists of people up to age 22, since even 22 isn't very... adult. There's a note in the conclusion about how laboratory settings may not accurately reflect real life risk, and I think that's almost certainly true, since the "riskiest" part of the experiments would be earning no money (which is a non-low neutrality/things stay the same), as opposed to losing any money, which may or may not be more characteristic of certain kinds of real-world risk. It might also be worth considering how money as a motivator may vary across the test population, for example I could see the "children" group having internal variance based on whether individual children have allowances/are generally expected to pay for their own wants (ie money may be more valuable) versus children who are accustomed to not having to consider the value of money. Likewise, there might be something to consider about the financial tumultuousness of adolescence, and whether or not an adolescent participating in a behavioral psychological study might think "I win no matter what" because they almost certainly get an over-0 amount of money no matter what, leading to what looks like less risk-aversion and less-informed decisions (in the case of ambiguity).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2019-05-12 11:11 pm (UTC)I'm a little wary of the fact that the "adult" category only consists of people up to age 22, since even 22 isn't very... adult. There's a note in the conclusion about how laboratory settings may not accurately reflect real life risk, and I think that's almost certainly true, since the "riskiest" part of the experiments would be earning no money (which is a non-low neutrality/things stay the same), as opposed to losing any money, which may or may not be more characteristic of certain kinds of real-world risk. It might also be worth considering how money as a motivator may vary across the test population, for example I could see the "children" group having internal variance based on whether individual children have allowances/are generally expected to pay for their own wants (ie money may be more valuable) versus children who are accustomed to not having to consider the value of money. Likewise, there might be something to consider about the financial tumultuousness of adolescence, and whether or not an adolescent participating in a behavioral psychological study might think "I win no matter what" because they almost certainly get an over-0 amount of money no matter what, leading to what looks like less risk-aversion and less-informed decisions (in the case of ambiguity).