Neural signatures of heterogeneity in risk‐taking and strategic consistency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People display a high degree of heterogeneity in risk-taking behaviour, but this heterogeneity remains poorly understood. Here, we use a neural trait approach to examine if task-independent, brain-based differences can help uncover the sources of heterogeneity in risky decision-making. We extend prior research in two key ways. First, we disentangled risk-taking and strategic consistency using novel measures afforded by the Balloon Analogue Risk Task. Second, we applied a personality neuroscience framework to explore why personality traits are typically only weakly related to risk-taking behaviour. We regressed participants' (N = 104) source localized resting-state electroencephalographic activity on risk-taking and strategic consistency. Results revealed that higher levels of resting-state delta-band current density (reflecting reduced cortical activation) in the left dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex were associated with increased risk-taking and decreased strategic consistency, respectively. These results suggest that heterogeneity in risk-taking behaviour is associated with neural dispositions related to sensitivity to the risk of loss, whereas heterogeneity in strategic consistency is associated with neural dispositions related to strategic decision-making. Finally, extraversion, neuroticism, openness, and self-control were broadly associated with both of the identified neural traits, which in turn mediated indirect associations between personality traits and behavioural measures. These results provide an explanation for the weak direct relationships between personality traits and risk-taking behaviour, supporting a personality neuroscience framework of traits and decision-making.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".