Evolutionary Perspectives on Risk-Taking Behaviour

Lecture 9

Risk-Sensitive Theory

organisms shift between risk-averse→risk-seeking behaviour.

risk-taking adaptive dependent on current need = energy-budget rule.

Problems with Classical Models

do not include minimum requirements for survival.

cannot explain when low-variance option guarantees failure.

ignores influence of need → risk-taking is context-dependent, behaviour flexible.

Energy Budget Rule

animals must meet minimum energy requirement to survive. creates natural survival target.

low variance (safe) option - small, predictable energy returns → risk aversion adaptive.

high variance (risky) option - chance of none or larger gain → risk-seeking adaptive.

Caraco et al. (1980) - Yellow-Eyed Junco Study

low variance patch - 1 seed each time, predictable. small but reliable energy gain.

high variance patch - 3 or 0 seeds. same average energy return as safe patch.

when safe option sufficient - consistently choose low variance. only condition to match classical predictions.

when safe option insufficient - risk-seeking, choose high variance. safety guaranteed starvation = adaptive.

Human Risk-Taking

humans have financial, academic, social needs for survival.

safe option enough - choose stable options. have sufficient resources → lower risk-taking (Haushofer & Fehr, 2014).

safe option NOT enough - high variance options more attractive. scarcity increases high variance choices (Shah et al., 2012; Mani et al., 2013).

Evolutionary Risk DOmains - Mating

Baker & Maner (2008) - mating cues increased financial risk taking.

Griskevicius et al. (2006) - mating primes increased risk in economic choices.

effects primarily in men.

Evolutionary Risk Domains - Status, Competition

Wilson & Daly (1985) - young men take greater risks when competing.

Ronay & von Hippel (2010) - men perform riskier skateboard tricks when observed by attractive female.

Evolutionary Risk Domains - Young Male Syndrome

young males across species take more risks. linked to competition, status, and reproductive motives.

Criticisms

risk sensitivity observed across species, but human patterns harder to test - strong evidence in animals.

hard to simulate survival thresholds in human research. money as proxy not perfect.

does not explain how people perceive risk; ignores cognitive+emotional influences (Weber, 1999).

personality - impulsivity and sensation-seeking relate to risk, but unclear how interact with need-based shifts.

past learning/experience may shape decisions.