The Zero Effect: An Eye‐Tracking Study of Affect and Motivation in Risky Choices

Ludwig, Jonas; Jaudas, Alexander; Achtziger, Anja · 2024 · Crossref

DOI: 10.1002/bdm.2400

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study investigates the "zero effect," a proposed alternative to the certainty effect in risky decision-making. While traditional prospect theory attributes the preference for sure gains to the overweighting of probabilities near 1 (the certainty effect), recent research suggests that decision-makers are primarily motivated to avoid zero outcomes in the gain domain. The authors test this hypothesis by examining whether zero-outcome aversion in gains and zero-outcome attraction in losses drive choice behavior, visual attention, and physiological arousal. The research aims to disentangle these mechanisms from the certainty effect by using eye-tracking and pupillometry to measure pre-decisional information search and affective responses. The researchers conducted two eye-tracking experiments. Experiment 1 focused on the gain domain, while Experiment 2 focused on the loss domain. Participants chose between pairs of gambles categorized into five types: similar outcomes (Type I), sure outcomes with zero variance (Type II), almost sure outcomes (Type III), gambles including a zero outcome (Type IV), and gambles combining a zero outcome with an almost sure outcome (Type V). The study measured lottery choices, decision times, visual fixations on gamble attributes, and pupil dilations to assess cognitive effort and arousal. The results supported the zero effect hypothesis. In the gain domain, participants chose gambles with zero outcomes less frequently than chance, indicating avoidance motivation. Conversely, in the loss domain, participants chose gambles with zero outcomes more frequently, indicating approach motivation. Eye-tracking data revealed that zero outcomes received fewer visual fixations than other outcomes in both domains, suggesting attentional neglect. However, pupillometry showed that zero outcomes were associated with increased pupil dilation, indicating higher physiological arousal. Decision times were faster for lotteries containing zero outcomes compared to those without, suggesting easier processing. Notably, the traditional certainty effect was not strongly supported; choice proportions for sure gains (Type II) did not significantly exceed chance levels in the gain domain, challenging the notion that certainty itself drives preference. The findings imply that domain-specific affective responses to zero outcomes—avoidance in gains and approach in losses—bias information search and choice behavior. The combination of reduced visual attention and increased arousal suggests that zero outcomes trigger automatic motivational responses rather than deliberate cognitive evaluation. This challenges the standard interpretation of the certainty effect, proposing that the aversion to ending up with nothing (in gains) or the attraction to avoiding loss (in losses) are primary drivers of risky choices. The study highlights the importance of considering affective and motivational mechanisms, alongside probability weighting, in understanding decision-making under risk.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-25; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• risk taking