Extreme Outcomes Accentuate Overweighting of Low Probabilities and Underweighting of High Probabilities in Experience-Based Choice

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2024-03-21 DOI:10.1002/bdm.2380
Thomas W. Elston, Hartmut Leuthold, Ian G. Mackenzie, Victor Mittelstädt
{"title":"Extreme Outcomes Accentuate Overweighting of Low Probabilities and Underweighting of High Probabilities in Experience-Based Choice","authors":"Thomas W. Elston,&nbsp;Hartmut Leuthold,&nbsp;Ian G. Mackenzie,&nbsp;Victor Mittelstädt","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2380","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Subjective inferences of probability are critical for decisions involving uncertainty. Recent studies have suggested that extreme outcomes bias beliefs about the value of uncertain options toward the best/worst outcome possible when learning the odds through experience, leading to increased preferences for uncertain options over equivaluable sure bets when there is the prospect of gain and, conversely, aversion to uncertain options when there is the prospect of loss. However, prior studies regarding the influence of extreme outcomes on decisions involving uncertainty have only done so using 50/50 gambles, and it was unclear whether extreme outcomes biased probability perception more broadly. Across three pre-registered experiments, we found that when people made decisions between equivaluable certain and uncertain options, they particularly preferred uncertain options at low probabilities (20%) when there was the prospect of gain and avoided them when there was the prospect of loss, with these preferences being reduced or even reversed at medium (50%) and high (80%) probabilities. We also found that uncertainty preferences were influenced by outcome extremity and the relative certainty associated with safe reference options. We conclude that extreme outcomes accentuate the overweighting of low probabilities and the underweighting of high probabilities in experience-based choice.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.2380","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.2380","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

Subjective inferences of probability are critical for decisions involving uncertainty. Recent studies have suggested that extreme outcomes bias beliefs about the value of uncertain options toward the best/worst outcome possible when learning the odds through experience, leading to increased preferences for uncertain options over equivaluable sure bets when there is the prospect of gain and, conversely, aversion to uncertain options when there is the prospect of loss. However, prior studies regarding the influence of extreme outcomes on decisions involving uncertainty have only done so using 50/50 gambles, and it was unclear whether extreme outcomes biased probability perception more broadly. Across three pre-registered experiments, we found that when people made decisions between equivaluable certain and uncertain options, they particularly preferred uncertain options at low probabilities (20%) when there was the prospect of gain and avoided them when there was the prospect of loss, with these preferences being reduced or even reversed at medium (50%) and high (80%) probabilities. We also found that uncertainty preferences were influenced by outcome extremity and the relative certainty associated with safe reference options. We conclude that extreme outcomes accentuate the overweighting of low probabilities and the underweighting of high probabilities in experience-based choice.

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
在基于经验的选择中,极端结果加剧了对低概率的过度重视和对高概率的过度重视
概率的主观推断对于涉及不确定性的决策至关重要。最近的研究表明,当通过经验了解赔率时,极端结果会使人们对不确定选项的价值产生偏向于最佳/最差结果的信念,从而导致在有可能获利时,人们更倾向于不确定选项而不是等价的确定赌注,反之,在有可能损失时,人们则厌恶不确定选项。然而,之前关于极端结果对不确定性决策的影响的研究只使用了50/50赌局,目前还不清楚极端结果是否会对更广泛的概率感知产生影响。在三个预先登记的实验中,我们发现,当人们在等价的确定选项和不确定选项之间做出决策时,在低概率(20%)下,当有可能获得收益时,他们特别偏好不确定选项,而当有可能遭受损失时,他们则回避不确定选项,而在中概率(50%)和高概率(80%)下,这些偏好会降低甚至相反。我们还发现,不确定性偏好受结果极端性和与安全参考选项相关的相对确定性的影响。我们的结论是,在基于经验的选择中,极端结果会加重低概率的权重,而减轻高概率的权重。
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