Preference for playing order in games with and without replacement: Motivational biases and probability misestimations

IF 1.9 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Judgment and Decision Making Pub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI:10.1017/s1930297500009098
Kwanho Suk, Jieun Koo
{"title":"Preference for playing order in games with and without replacement:\n Motivational biases and probability misestimations","authors":"Kwanho Suk, Jieun Koo","doi":"10.1017/s1930297500009098","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This research explores the preference for playing order in games in\n which each of several players draws a random event (e.g., a ball from an\n urn), with and without replacement after each draw. Three studies show that\n people tend to prefer to draw early regardless of whether the game is with\n or without replacement, although the expected probability of winning is the\n same irrespective of the draw order. The reasons for preferring earlier\n draws differ depending on the game type. For games without replacement, the\n biased preference for earlier draws is related to multiple motivational\n factors such as aversion to uncertainty, ambiguity, and uncontrollability.\n Game valence also affects draw order preference through the misestimation of\n winning probabilities: people tend to prefer earlier draws in a\n gain-dominant game (i.e., a higher probability of winning) but prefer later\n draws in a loss-dominant game (i.e., a higher probability of losing). For\n games with replacement, preference for earlier draws is mainly explained by\n uncertainty aversion, with little bias in probability estimations.","PeriodicalId":48045,"journal":{"name":"Judgment and Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Judgment and Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500009098","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This research explores the preference for playing order in games in which each of several players draws a random event (e.g., a ball from an urn), with and without replacement after each draw. Three studies show that people tend to prefer to draw early regardless of whether the game is with or without replacement, although the expected probability of winning is the same irrespective of the draw order. The reasons for preferring earlier draws differ depending on the game type. For games without replacement, the biased preference for earlier draws is related to multiple motivational factors such as aversion to uncertainty, ambiguity, and uncontrollability. Game valence also affects draw order preference through the misestimation of winning probabilities: people tend to prefer earlier draws in a gain-dominant game (i.e., a higher probability of winning) but prefer later draws in a loss-dominant game (i.e., a higher probability of losing). For games with replacement, preference for earlier draws is mainly explained by uncertainty aversion, with little bias in probability estimations.
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
在有替换和没有替换的游戏中对游戏顺序的偏好:动机偏差和概率错误估计
这项研究探讨了在每个玩家随机抽取一个事件(例如,从瓮中取出一个球)的游戏中,玩家对游戏顺序的偏好,每次抽取后都有或没有替换。三项研究表明,不管比赛是否有替补,人们都倾向于提前抽签,尽管无论抽签顺序如何,获胜的预期概率都是一样的。偏好提前抽签的原因取决于游戏类型。对于没有替换的游戏,对早期抽签的偏爱与多种动机因素有关,如对不确定性、模糊性和不可控性的厌恶。游戏价也会通过对获胜概率的错误估计而影响平局顺序偏好:人们倾向于在收益占主导地位的游戏中更早的平局(即更高的获胜概率),但在损失占主导地位的游戏中更倾向于更晚的平局(即更高的失败概率)。对于有替换的游戏,对早期平局的偏好主要是由不确定性厌恶来解释的,在概率估计上几乎没有偏见。
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
Judgment and Decision Making
Judgment and Decision Making PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
8.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
The benefits of deciding now and not later: The influence of the timing between acquiring knowledge and deciding on decision confidence, omission neglect bias, and choice deferral I want to believe: Prior beliefs influence judgments about the effectiveness of both alternative and scientific medicine The final step effect Choosing more aggressive commitment contracts for others than for the self Systematic metacognitive reflection helps people discover far-sighted decision strategies: A process-tracing experiment
×
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