An Empirical Test of the Relative State Model with Texas Holdem Poker Scenarios

Abstract

This study empirically tested predictions from a new evolutionary model of risky decision-making, the relative state model (RSM), using Texas holdem poker scenarios. The RSM suggests that risk taking is a product of one of two interacting pathways—need (desperation) and ability (affordance). According the RSM, decisions are made based on an assessment of one’s relative state, attributable to the interaction of embodied and situational factors within the environment of competition. Embodied factors are inherent physical or psychological capabilities of the decision-maker; situational factors determine how those capabilities compare relative to others in an environment. In the present study, I tested predictions of the RSM in a hypothetical winner-take-all poker tournament scenario. In this decision environment, card strength and number of chips represent embodied and situational factors respectively. Relative state was operationalized in a 2x2 (high/low) embodied by situational factor design with each of the four conditions designed to test predictions made by the RSM. Participants made choices between calling an all-in bet (risky) or folding (non-risky). Of n = 629 participants recruited, n = 297 passed a general poker knowledge screening quiz and were the focus of the primary analysis. Evidence for both ability and need-based risk taking was found. However, the experiment did not offer evidence for an interaction between need and ability as predicted by the RSM. Limitations of the experimental design and peculiarities of the sample suggest further enquiry is necessary. This study provides the first direct intentional experimental evidence for ability-based risk-taking, and suggests directions for future research.