1. TECT: Kacelnik Package Individual and group decision making under risk. Are groups more or less efficient in handling risky decisions than individuals?

2. The Experimental Paradigm: Risk it! Choice Play Safe Discrimination images Confidence?RI Risk it? Well done…You won 1… OK Feedback Sample 10% 20% 30% 90% 100% …

3. Decisions and contingencies Risk it!Play Safe Correct identification P HITMissed opportunity Incorrect identification 1-P False Alarm Correct rejection Payoff P * (HIT) + (1-P) * (FA)P * (Miss) + (1-P) * (CR) This matrix allows us to combine Signal Detection Theory and Metacognition, and to identify absolute, individual and group optimal strategies Maximum expected payoff: Take a chance IFF:

4. Hit False Alarm Correct Rejection Miss

5. Our experimental paradigm results in estimates of: 1.Accuracy of metacognitive estimates. 2.Influence of metacognition on choice. 3.Non- conscious determinants of choice. 4.Whether groups differ (respect to individuals): 1.Accuracy of choice 2.Accuracy of self-appraisal 3.Risk appetite 4.Achieved pay off Chance Safe Correct Incorrect Miss CR FA Hit

6. Logistic regression of Outcome vs. Confidence, gives several parameters of self perception Correct?

7. Logistic regression of Decision Versus Confidence gives parameters of actual riskiness in behaviour Took a chance ?

8. C*: Optimal Confidence Threshold  A perfectly consistent individual has one estimate of P correct ; below it, she plays safe, above it, she chances.  C*:the confidence above which a perfectly consistent individual should switch from playing safe to gambling in order to maximize payoff  C* results from a subject’s distribution of accuracy and confidence, but assumes total consistency, hence it is another theoretical yardstick against which to judge decision making aptitude. C*

9. God’s Dad Normal discrimination Perfect judgement Perfect consistency C* Normal discrimination Normal judgement Normal consistency Excellent confidence match