I combine theory and methodology from economics, psychology, and neuroscience to understand how people decide, why they make wrong decisions, and how to make them better choosers. My research focused on how economic preferences change over the lifespan and contexts, including how thirst, being observed, outdoor luminance, as well as the structure of current and past choice affect behavior.
I have been awarded over $33 million in grants as a Chief Investigator, including ARC Centre of Excellence, DECRA, Discovery, and Linkage grants. In 2017 I received the Award from the Society for Neuroeconomics for my contributions to our understanding of decision-making.
Published papers
Rosato A. and Tymula A. (2024) A novel experimental test of truthful bidding in second-price auctions with real objects, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 111
Kettlewell N. and Tymula A. (2024) Heritability across different domains of trust, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 219:549-563
Pastore C., Schurer S., Tymula A., Fuller N, Caterson I. (2023) Economic Preferences and Obesity: Evidence from a Clinical Lab-in-Field Experiment, Health Economics, 32:2147-2167
Berger A. and Tymula A. (2022) Controlling ambiguity: The illusion of control in decision-making under risk and ambiguity [short poster presentation] Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 10.1007/s11166-022-09399-4
Cheung S. L., Tymula A., Wang X. (2022) Present Bias for Monetary and Dietary Rewards: Evidence from Chinese Teenagers, Experimental Economics, 25: 1202–1233
Guo J. and Tymula A. (2021) Waterfall illusion in risky choice, European Economic Review, 139
Tymula A. and Wang X. (2021) Increased risk-taking, not loss tolerance, drives adolescents’ propensity to gamble more under peer observation, [supplement], Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 188:439-457
Weinrabe A., Chung H., Tymula A., Tranand J., Hickie I. (2020) Economic Rationality in Young People with Emerging Mood Disorder, Journal of Neuroscience, Economics, and Psychology
Tymula (2019) Adolescents are more impatient and inconsistent, not more risk-taking when observed by peers – a comprehensive study of adolescent behavior under peer observation, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organisation, 166:735-750
Chung, H., Glimcher. P.W., Tymula, A. (2019) An Experimental Comparison of Risky and Riskless Choice – Limitations of Prospect Theory and Expected Utility Theory, American Economic Journal: Micro, 11(3):34-67
Rosato A. and Tymula A. (2019) Loss Aversion and Competition in Vickrey Auctions: Money Ain’t No Good, Games and Economic Behavior, 115: 188-208
Published book chapters
Tymula A. (2019). Brain Morphometry for Economists: How do Brain Volume Constraints Affect Our Choices? in Biophysical Measurement in Experimental Social Science Research, Foster (Eds.), ELSEVIER
Other writing
Tymula A. (2016) Financial gamble? My brain made me do it. The Conversation
- featured on Scientific American Blog Network
- written for the Young Minds of the 2014 USA Science and Engineering Festival
Tymula A. (2014) Explainer: neuroeconomics, where science and economics meet. The Conversation
Book review of After Phrenology: Neural Reuse and the Interactive Brain, Michael L. Anderson. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA (2014) in Journal of Economic Psychology, Volume 51, December 2015, p. 279–280
Papers under review
Cheung S., Tymula, A. and Wang X. (2023) Quasi-hyperbolic present bias: A meta-analysis [short poster presentation] revision requested from Management Science
Quasi-hyperbolic discounting is one of the most well-known and widely-used models to capture self-control problems in the economics literature. The underlying assumption of this model is that agents have a “present bias” toward current consumption such that all future rewards are downweighed relative to rewards in the present (in addition to standard exponential discounting for the length of delay). We report a meta-analytic dataset of estimates of the present bias parameter based on searches of all major research databases (62 papers with 81 estimates in total). We find that the literature shows that people are on average present biased for both monetary rewards (beta=0.82, 95% confidence interval of [0.74, 0.90]) and non-monetary rewards (beta=0.66, 95% confidence interval of [0.51, 0.85]) but that substantial heterogeneity exists across studies. The source of this heterogeneity comes from the subject pool, elicitation methodology, geographical location, payment method, mode of data collection (e.g. laboratory or field), and reward type. There is evidence of selective reporting and publication bias in the direction of overestimating the strength of present-bias (making estimates smaller), but present bias still exists after correcting for these issues (for money beta=0.87 with 95% confidence interval of [0.82, 0.92] after correcting for selective reporting).
The Divisive Normalization (DN) function has been described as a “canonical neural computation” in the brain that achieves efficient representations of sensory and choice stimuli. Recent theoretical work indicates that it efficiently encodes a specific class of Pareto-distributed stimuli. Does the brain shift to different encoding functions in other types of environments, or is there evidence for DN encoding in other types of environments? In this paper, using a within-subject choice experiment, we show evidence of the latter. Our subjects made decisions in two distinct choice environments with choice sets either drawn from a Pareto distribution or from a uniform distribution. Our results indicate that subjects’ choices are better described by a divisive coding strategy in both environments. Moreover, subjects appeared to calibrate a DN function to match, as closely as possible, the actual statistical properties of each environment. These results suggest that the nervous system may be constrained to use divisive representations under all conditions.
Cheung S., MacGibbon K., Milin-Byrne A., Tymula A. (2024) Quasi-exponential discounting
Alternatives to the standard model of time preference typically relax the assumption of an exponential discount function while retaining the framework of discounted utility. We report novel behavioural data inconsistent with this approach. Illustrating this, we estimate highly significant “present bias”, despite our data exhibiting stationarity. The paradox is resolved by relaxing discounted utility itself to allow discounting to be context dependent. We propose quasi-exponential discounting (QED), a fixed penalty applied to all episodes of delay, as a particularly simple model of this type and show that it provides an excellent approximation to the best fit to our data.
Behavioral economic theory attributes the inability to lose weight to impatience and present bias, assuming they lead to excessive food consumption and inadequate exercise. We use data from a large-scale lab-in-field study that tracks 293 participants with obesity who attempted to improve their health as part of a 12-month randomized controlled trial conducted in a clinical setting. Consistent with behavioral economic theory, we find that trial participants who are less impatient are more likely to complete the trial. However, there is no evidence that participants who are less impatient or less present-biased are more successful in reducing body fat or weight. We replicate that a person’s impatience does not predict their intended weight change over a period of one year using a nationally representative data of 6,118 adults with obesity. Our results suggest that obesity is not just a behavioral condition. Treatments that focus on correcting individual’s impatience or self-control alone may not be the right approach for weight loss in clinically-relevant populations.
Discrimination based on race, gender, or religion is a well-documented phenomenon that leads to disadvantageous financial, labor market, academic, and social outcomes for those who experience it. These disadvantages are known to arise from decisions made by those who discriminate. But does experiencing discrimination also alter our own decision-making? To explore this question, we designed a novel experiment to examine how discrimination affects investment decisions in ambiguous and risky assets. In our within-subject study, we introduced discrimination by varying the probability of receiving a small performance bonus (5% vs 95% chance). We found that after experiencing discrimination (only 5% chance of a bonus), participants invested less in ambiguous assets but their investments in risky assets remained unchanged. We examined whether an increase in wealth, much higher than the monetary cost of discrimination, and previous experience of discrimination mitigate the effects of our discrimination treatment. Our research underscores the importance of accounting for additional indirect costs of discrimination.
While women are generally more risk-averse than men, the reasons remain unclear. Inspired by efficient coding literature, we hypothesize that women’s lower financial risk tolerance is due to lower reference points. We measured financial reference points in a representative US sample using a range of unincentivized and incentivized methods. Our findings show that women consistently have lower reference points, leading to more risk-averse behavior. We explore potential reasons for this and its policy implications.
Tymula A. and Yamada H. (2024) Neural and behavioral probability weighting function
Recent theoretical models challenge the existence of a probability weighting function as it was traditionally conceived in Prospect Theory in ways that are not straightforward to test using choice data. This study transcends these constraints by directly observing probability distortions in the brain, free from utility confounds. Utilizing a unique dataset comprising 64,175 decision trials and 78,067 neural measurement trials, we pinpoint neural activity (a basic biological decision processing unit) that exclusively encodes probability, independent of payoff magnitudes. Our results demonstrate that neural probability weighting functions diverge from those estimated behaviorally under conventional assumptions. Furthermore, incorporating a biologically realistic utility function enhances our ability to reconstruct neural probability weighting from observed choices, offering direct biological evidence on the bases of economic decision-making.
Kettlewell N. and Tymula A. (2024) Heritability of different types of overconfidence
Incorrect estimation of own absolute and relative abilities is common and can have detrimental effects on a person’s educational, social, employment, and financial outcomes. It is not yet fully understood from where interpersonal differences in overconfidence emerge. In this paper, we estimate the heritability of two types of overconfidence, overestimation and overplacement, in a sample of 1120 twins. We find that the genetic heritability of both types of overconfidence is about 19% and that most of the interindividual variation in overconfidence is due to individual-specific environmental factors.
Kettlewell N., Tymula, A. and Yoo H. (2023) The heritability of economic preferences
We study the heritability of risk, uncertainty, and time preferences using a field experiment with a large sample of adult twins. We also offer a meta-analysis of existing findings. Our field study introduces a novel empirical approach that marries behavioral genetics with structural econometrics. This allows us to, for the first time, quantify the heritability of economic preference parameters directly without employing proxy measures. Our incentive-compatible experiment is the first twin study to elicit all three types of preferences for the same individual. Compared to previous studies, we find a greater role of genes in explaining risk and uncertainty preferences, and of the shared familial environment in explaining time preferences. Time preferences appear more important from policy and parenting perspectives since they exhibit limited genetic variation and are more than twice as sensitive to the familial environment as risk and uncertainty preferences.
Kettlewell N., Levy J., Tymula A., Wang X. (2023) The gender reference point gap
Studies have frequently found that women are more risk averse than men. In this paper, we depart from usual practice in economics that treats risk attitude as a primitive, and instead adopt a neuroeconomic approach where risk attitude is determined by the reference point which can be easily estimated using standard econometric methods. We then evaluate whether there is a gender difference in the reference point, explaining the gender difference in risk aversion observed using traditional approaches. In our study, women make riskier choices less frequently than men. Compared to men, we find that women on average have a significantly lower reference point. By acknowledging the reference point as a potential source of gender inequality, we can begin a new discussion on how to address this important issue.
Akbari M., Alladi V., Je H. and Tymula A (2023) Ambiguity vulnerability
We theoretically define and empirically investigate a new notion: ambiguity vulnerability. Ambiguity vulnerability posits that individuals exhibit greater risk aversion in their decisions when faced with a background (that is beyond an individual’s control) prospect that has unknown probabilities (background ambiguity) than one with known probabilities (background risk). We find empirical evidence of ambiguity vulnerability, with individuals investing 11% less when faced with background ambiguity compared to background risk. We provide evidence on the relationship between utility shape and risk and ambiguity vulnerability. Finally, our results suggest that financial stress could be perceived as a form of background uncertainty, potentially reducing individuals’ profitable investments.
Less – traditional research output
Decision-making and ageing exhibit at the Museum of the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, DC (part of the Life Lab exhibit)
- on display May 2012 – September 2018