Decision-making styles and cognitive biases: Experimental results from a Korean sample

IF 1.6 3区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.socec.2024.102329
Bum Seok Kim , Woosub Kim , Jae H. Min
{"title":"Decision-making styles and cognitive biases: Experimental results from a Korean sample","authors":"Bum Seok Kim ,&nbsp;Woosub Kim ,&nbsp;Jae H. Min","doi":"10.1016/j.socec.2024.102329","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study aims to identify which decision-making style is more prone to judgment errors induced by various heuristics by categorizing subjects into five decision-making styles: rational, intuitive, dependent, avoidant, and spontaneous. Specifically, we measure the frequency of judgment errors using the three heuristics of representativeness, availability, and anchoring and adjustment for each decision-making style by presenting 343 participants with several decision tasks. Logistic regression analysis is employed to discern the distinctive characteristics among the five decision-making styles. The results show that cognitive biases caused by using the heuristics differ based on individuals’ decision-making styles, suggesting that these styles are associated with their respective judgment error types. The experimental results of this study can support individuals in making more rational decisions by helping them understand which cognitive biases are likely to occur based on their specific decision-making style.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51637,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics","volume":"114 ","pages":"Article 102329"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804324001666","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aims to identify which decision-making style is more prone to judgment errors induced by various heuristics by categorizing subjects into five decision-making styles: rational, intuitive, dependent, avoidant, and spontaneous. Specifically, we measure the frequency of judgment errors using the three heuristics of representativeness, availability, and anchoring and adjustment for each decision-making style by presenting 343 participants with several decision tasks. Logistic regression analysis is employed to discern the distinctive characteristics among the five decision-making styles. The results show that cognitive biases caused by using the heuristics differ based on individuals’ decision-making styles, suggesting that these styles are associated with their respective judgment error types. The experimental results of this study can support individuals in making more rational decisions by helping them understand which cognitive biases are likely to occur based on their specific decision-making style.
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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
113
审稿时长
83 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly the Journal of Socio-Economics) welcomes submissions that deal with various economic topics but also involve issues that are related to other social sciences, especially psychology, or use experimental methods of inquiry. Thus, contributions in behavioral economics, experimental economics, economic psychology, and judgment and decision making are especially welcome. The journal is open to different research methodologies, as long as they are relevant to the topic and employed rigorously. Possible methodologies include, for example, experiments, surveys, empirical work, theoretical models, meta-analyses, case studies, and simulation-based analyses. Literature reviews that integrate findings from many studies are also welcome, but they should synthesize the literature in a useful manner and provide substantial contribution beyond what the reader could get by simply reading the abstracts of the cited papers. In empirical work, it is important that the results are not only statistically significant but also economically significant. A high contribution-to-length ratio is expected from published articles and therefore papers should not be unnecessarily long, and short articles are welcome. Articles should be written in a manner that is intelligible to our generalist readership. Book reviews are generally solicited but occasionally unsolicited reviews will also be published. Contact the Book Review Editor for related inquiries.
期刊最新文献
Praise and cooperation: Investigating the effects of praise content and agency Admission quota schemes and regional inequality Editorial Board Related examinations and tax compliance Instinctiveness and reflexivity in behavioural type variability
×
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