The effect of the 1-in-X numerical format on choices

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2023-09-20 DOI:10.1002/bdm.2355
Stefania Pighin, Alessandro Bogani, Gloria Berenisse Castro Davalos, Lucia Savadori
{"title":"The effect of the 1-in-X numerical format on choices","authors":"Stefania Pighin,&nbsp;Alessandro Bogani,&nbsp;Gloria Berenisse Castro Davalos,&nbsp;Lucia Savadori","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2355","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The 1-in-X numerical format (e.g., 1 in 200) has been found to increase subjective probability evaluations and behavioral intentions in hypothetical scenarios compared with the N-in-NX format (e.g., 5 in 1000). However, it remains unclear whether this format can also bias choices between truly incentivized options. In four online studies (<i>N =</i> 1039), participants were presented with a small endowment (i.e., 1£) and an actual choice between two options: a sure loss of a part of such endowment and a lottery with the chance to lose the entire endowment, presented using either the 1-in-X or the N-in-NX format. In Studies 1–3, where the two options were equivalent in expected monetary value (EV) and the lottery was described with varying degrees of concreteness, participants preferred the lottery option to a lesser extent when the chance of losing the endowment was presented using the 1-in-X format compared with the N-in-NX format. The same effect was replicated in Study 4a when the lottery option had a higher EV than the sure loss, showing that the 1-in-X effect can also lead individuals to deviate from maximizing EV. However, the effect vanished in Study 4b when the difference in EV between the two options increased. Implications for risk communication and a possible interpretation of the results are discussed accordingly.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.2355","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.2355","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The 1-in-X numerical format (e.g., 1 in 200) has been found to increase subjective probability evaluations and behavioral intentions in hypothetical scenarios compared with the N-in-NX format (e.g., 5 in 1000). However, it remains unclear whether this format can also bias choices between truly incentivized options. In four online studies (N = 1039), participants were presented with a small endowment (i.e., 1£) and an actual choice between two options: a sure loss of a part of such endowment and a lottery with the chance to lose the entire endowment, presented using either the 1-in-X or the N-in-NX format. In Studies 1–3, where the two options were equivalent in expected monetary value (EV) and the lottery was described with varying degrees of concreteness, participants preferred the lottery option to a lesser extent when the chance of losing the endowment was presented using the 1-in-X format compared with the N-in-NX format. The same effect was replicated in Study 4a when the lottery option had a higher EV than the sure loss, showing that the 1-in-X effect can also lead individuals to deviate from maximizing EV. However, the effect vanished in Study 4b when the difference in EV between the two options increased. Implications for risk communication and a possible interpretation of the results are discussed accordingly.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
1-X 数字格式对选择的影响
与 N-in-NX 格式(如 1000 分之 5)相比,1-in-X 数字格式(如 200 分之 1)被认为会提高假设情景中的主观概率评估和行为意向。然而,目前还不清楚这种形式是否也会在真正的激励选项之间产生偏差。在四项在线研究(N = 1039)中,参与者会得到一笔小额捐赠(即 1 英镑),并在两个选项中做出实际选择:一个是肯定会失去部分捐赠,另一个是有机会失去全部捐赠的彩票,这两个选项均采用 1 进 X 或 N 进 NX 的形式呈现。在研究 1-3 中,两个选项的预期货币价值(EV)相等,彩票的描述也有不同程度的具体化,与 N 进 NX 的形式相比,当采用 1 进 X 的形式呈现失去捐赠的机会时,参与者对彩票选项的偏好程度较低。在研究 4a 中,当彩票选项的 EV 值高于确定损失的 EV 值时,也出现了同样的效应,这表明 1-in-X 效应也会导致个体偏离 EV 值最大化。然而,在研究 4b 中,当两个选项之间的 EV 差值增大时,这种效应消失了。因此,我们讨论了风险交流的意义以及对结果的可能解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral Decision Making is a multidisciplinary journal with a broad base of content and style. It publishes original empirical reports, critical review papers, theoretical analyses and methodological contributions. The Journal also features book, software and decision aiding technique reviews, abstracts of important articles published elsewhere and teaching suggestions. The objective of the Journal is to present and stimulate behavioral research on decision making and to provide a forum for the evaluation of complementary, contrasting and conflicting perspectives. These perspectives include psychology, management science, sociology, political science and economics. Studies of behavioral decision making in naturalistic and applied settings are encouraged.
期刊最新文献
Correction to The Effect of a Default Nudge on Experienced and Expected Autonomy: A Field Study on Food Donation Equivalence Framing and the Construction of Advocacy Messages Predicting Emotional and Behavioral Reactions to Collective Wrongdoing: Effects of Imagined Versus Experienced Collective Guilt on Moral Behavior Reference-Dependent Risk-Taking in the NBA The Relative Importance of the Contrast and Assimilation Effects in Decisions Under Risk
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1