arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Improving risky choices: The effect of cognitive offloading on risky decisions

Yihong Gao & Michele Garagnani

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty2025https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-025-09451-zarticle
AJG 3ABDC A*
Weight
0.37

What the paper says

Economic choices are difficult and computationally complex. To make good decisions one needs to integrate different variables and resolve several trade-offs. We study whether providing external tools which help reducing the computational complexity of choices improves risky decisions. We find mixed evidence for the effectiveness of these tools, as people tend to rarely use them. Overall, cognitive offloading tools make people less risk averse and better at updating beliefs, but they do not decrease irrational behavior, in the sense of the proportion of dominated choices, violations of expected utility, and sub-optimal budget allocations. These results suggest that simply providing external tools, which make choices (computationally) easier, but where using these aids is discretional, has a limited impact on improving people’s choices under risk.

1 citation

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-025-09451-z

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{yihong2025,
  title        = {{Improving risky choices: The effect of cognitive offloading on risky decisions}},
  author       = {Yihong Gao & Michele Garagnani},
  journal      = {Journal of Risk and Uncertainty},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-025-09451-z},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Improving risky choices: The effect of cognitive offloading on risky decisions

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.37

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.16 × 0.4 = 0.06
M · momentum0.53 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.