Outcomes Affect Evaluations of Decision Quality: Replication and Extensions of Baron and Hershey's (1988) Outcome Bias Experiment 1.

IF 1.6 4区心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL International Review of Social Psychology Pub Date : 2023-07-28 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.5334/irsp.751

Sriraj Aiyer, Hoi Ching Kam, Ka Yuk Ng, Nathaniel A Young, Jiaxin Shi, Gilad Feldman

{"title":"Outcomes Affect Evaluations of Decision Quality: Replication and Extensions of Baron and Hershey's (1988) Outcome Bias Experiment 1.","authors":"Sriraj Aiyer, Hoi Ching Kam, Ka Yuk Ng, Nathaniel A Young, Jiaxin Shi, Gilad Feldman","doi":"10.5334/irsp.751","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Outcome bias is the phenomenon whereby decisions which resulted in successful outcomes were rated more favorably than when the same decisions resulted in failures. We conducted a pre-registered replication and extension of Experiment 1 (original's: N = 20) from the classic Baron and Hershey (1988) with an online Amazon Mechanical Turk sample using CloudResearch (N = 692), switching from a within-participants design in the original experiment to a between-participants design. We tested outcome bias by measuring participants' ratings of the quality of decisions in medical scenarios. For the replication (pre-registered) part of the study, we successfully replicated signal and direction of the outcome bias (original: dpaired = 0.21 - 0.53; replication: dindependent = 0.77 [0.62, 0.93] to 1.1 [0.94, 1.26]), and even for participants who stated that outcomes should not be taken into consideration when evaluating decisions (d = 0.64 [0.21, 1.08]). For the extension part of the study, we found differences, dependent on outcome types, in evaluations of the perceived importance of considering the outcome, the perceived responsibility of decision-makers, and the perception that others would act similarly given the choice by outcome type. Materials, data, and code are available on Open Science Framework (OSF): https://osf.io/knjhu/.","PeriodicalId":45461,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Social Psychology","volume":"1 1","pages":"12"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12372742/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.751","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Outcome bias is the phenomenon whereby decisions which resulted in successful outcomes were rated more favorably than when the same decisions resulted in failures. We conducted a pre-registered replication and extension of Experiment 1 (original's: N = 20) from the classic Baron and Hershey (1988) with an online Amazon Mechanical Turk sample using CloudResearch (N = 692), switching from a within-participants design in the original experiment to a between-participants design. We tested outcome bias by measuring participants' ratings of the quality of decisions in medical scenarios. For the replication (pre-registered) part of the study, we successfully replicated signal and direction of the outcome bias (original: d_paired = 0.21 - 0.53; replication: d_independent = 0.77 [0.62, 0.93] to 1.1 [0.94, 1.26]), and even for participants who stated that outcomes should not be taken into consideration when evaluating decisions (d = 0.64 [0.21, 1.08]). For the extension part of the study, we found differences, dependent on outcome types, in evaluations of the perceived importance of considering the outcome, the perceived responsibility of decision-makers, and the perception that others would act similarly given the choice by outcome type. Materials, data, and code are available on Open Science Framework (OSF): https://osf.io/knjhu/.

Abstract Image

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

结果影响决策质量评价：Baron和Hershey（1988）结果偏倚实验的复制和扩展

结果偏差是一种现象，即导致成功结果的决策比导致失败的决策得到更有利的评价。我们使用CloudResearch （N = 692）对经典的Baron和Hershey（1988）进行了预先注册的复制和扩展实验1（原始的：N = 20），并使用在线Amazon Mechanical Turk样本（N = 692），从原始实验中的参与者内部设计切换到参与者之间设计。我们通过测量参与者对医疗场景中决策质量的评分来测试结果偏差。对于研究的复制（预注册）部分，我们成功地复制了结果偏倚的信号和方向（原始：dpaed = 0.21 - 0.53；复制：independdependent = 0.77[0.62, 0.93]至1.1[0.94,1.26]），甚至对于那些表示在评估决策时不应该考虑结果的参与者（d = 0.64[0.21, 1.08]）。对于研究的延伸部分，我们发现了差异，取决于结果类型，在评估考虑结果的感知重要性，决策者的感知责任，以及其他人会采取类似行动的感知结果类型的选择。材料、数据和代码可在开放科学框架（OSF）上获得：https://osf.io/knjhu/。

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

International Review of Social Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL-

CiteScore

5.20

自引率

8.00%

发文量

审稿时长

16 weeks

期刊介绍： The International Review of Social Psychology (IRSP) is supported by the Association pour la Diffusion de la Recherche Internationale en Psychologie Sociale (A.D.R.I.P.S.). The International Review of Social Psychology publishes empirical research and theoretical notes in all areas of social psychology. Articles are written preferably in English but can also be written in French. The journal was created to reflect research advances in a field where theoretical and fundamental questions inevitably convey social significance and implications. It emphasizes scientific quality of its publications in every area of social psychology. Any kind of research can be considered, as long as the results significantly enhance the understanding of a general social psychological phenomenon and the methodology is appropriate.