Pub Date : 2024-06-12DOI: 10.3389/frbhe.2024.1289610
Jiwoong Yoon, Hokyu Lee, Yeonghun Won
The new mission-oriented national R&D programs, aligned with a transformative paradigm to address societal challenges, face challenges in economic feasibility analysis due to the ongoing development of innovative solutions and the time required for marketization.In this study, we employed a Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) to survey 300 Korean households, exploring their willingness to pay for R&D programs hypothetically funded by their taxes. We estimated the mean willingness to pay (WTP) and multiplied it by the total number of households in Korea to project the annual total benefit for each program.Using metrics like the value-added ratio, marketization success rate, and R&D contribution rate, we assessed the economic value of program benefits. Our analysis indicates a total benefit of KRW 285 billion (KRW 242.5 billion net present value) for a total investment of KRW 990 billion (KRW 505.4 billion net present value), with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 2.08, arming significant economic feasibility.Given the importance of respecting researchers' autonomy, decision-makers may find the CVM a suitable method for validating evidence for new mission-oriented R&D programs across diverse fields.
{"title":"Is the new mission-oriented R&D policy feasible?: evidence from the national R&D programs in Korea using CVM","authors":"Jiwoong Yoon, Hokyu Lee, Yeonghun Won","doi":"10.3389/frbhe.2024.1289610","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frbhe.2024.1289610","url":null,"abstract":"The new mission-oriented national R&D programs, aligned with a transformative paradigm to address societal challenges, face challenges in economic feasibility analysis due to the ongoing development of innovative solutions and the time required for marketization.In this study, we employed a Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) to survey 300 Korean households, exploring their willingness to pay for R&D programs hypothetically funded by their taxes. We estimated the mean willingness to pay (WTP) and multiplied it by the total number of households in Korea to project the annual total benefit for each program.Using metrics like the value-added ratio, marketization success rate, and R&D contribution rate, we assessed the economic value of program benefits. Our analysis indicates a total benefit of KRW 285 billion (KRW 242.5 billion net present value) for a total investment of KRW 990 billion (KRW 505.4 billion net present value), with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 2.08, arming significant economic feasibility.Given the importance of respecting researchers' autonomy, decision-makers may find the CVM a suitable method for validating evidence for new mission-oriented R&D programs across diverse fields.","PeriodicalId":476280,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Behavioral Economics","volume":"141 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141351047","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-06-05DOI: 10.3389/frbhe.2024.1369500
Jelle Strikwerda, B. Holleman, Hans Hoeken
Pension participants need appropriate support when making (complex) pension decisions. Grounded in Fuzzy-Trace Theory, we argue that suitable decisions require participants to (accurately) understand meaningful differences between decision alternatives. Based on this, we investigated the effectiveness of different types of decision support for the decision when to retire.We conducted two experiments among participants of four Dutch pension funds (Study 1: N = 2,328, Study 2: N = 500) on the effectiveness of three different types of decision support: (a) a traditional pros and cons text, (b) a Value Clarification Method (VCM), and (c) testimonials.The studies showed mixed results. In the first study, we found an activating effect of the VCM and the testimonials: participants who received one of these two types of decision support were more likely to visit a web page with additional information. In the second study, we found no differences between the three types of decision support.We discuss possible explanations for the effects found, as well as implications for future (research on) pension decision support.
{"title":"Supporting pension decisions with value clarification methods or testimonials: two studies showing mixed effects on activation and feeling of preparation","authors":"Jelle Strikwerda, B. Holleman, Hans Hoeken","doi":"10.3389/frbhe.2024.1369500","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frbhe.2024.1369500","url":null,"abstract":"Pension participants need appropriate support when making (complex) pension decisions. Grounded in Fuzzy-Trace Theory, we argue that suitable decisions require participants to (accurately) understand meaningful differences between decision alternatives. Based on this, we investigated the effectiveness of different types of decision support for the decision when to retire.We conducted two experiments among participants of four Dutch pension funds (Study 1: N = 2,328, Study 2: N = 500) on the effectiveness of three different types of decision support: (a) a traditional pros and cons text, (b) a Value Clarification Method (VCM), and (c) testimonials.The studies showed mixed results. In the first study, we found an activating effect of the VCM and the testimonials: participants who received one of these two types of decision support were more likely to visit a web page with additional information. In the second study, we found no differences between the three types of decision support.We discuss possible explanations for the effects found, as well as implications for future (research on) pension decision support.","PeriodicalId":476280,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Behavioral Economics","volume":"48 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141383032","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-09DOI: 10.3389/frbhe.2024.1304833
J. B. Gately, Abdelaziz Alsharawy
Social decisions with monetary consequences are often accompanied with emotional consequences. Previous studies document a robust role of pre-play message communication in facilitating pro-sociality and cooperation. Yet, the effects of communicating emotional experiences in social interactions (particularly post-play) remain understudied. Here, we examine the value of a social environment where emotional expressions are shared post-play in contrast to a private environment where emotion exposure is absent. We develop an experimental design that facilitates emotion exposure and can be readily administered in or outside the laboratory. In this pre-registered online study, participants (N = 196) completed incentivized extensions of the Dictator Game (DG) and the Prisoners' Dilemma Game (PD). Participants learned to classify their emotional experiences on the arousal, valence, and dominance dimensions using non-verbal pictorial representations. Our experiment comprised both a within-subject and a between-subject manipulation: each participant completed a control condition (C, no emotional exposure) as well as an emotion exposure condition (Emotions), but the type of exposure varied between subjects (certain exposure, or Emotions-E, or probabilistic exposure, or Emotions-P). In all conditions, participants complete a one-shot DG and PD. We find that emotion exposure increases other-regarding behavior under both Emotions-E and Emotion-P conditions in the DG and under Emotions-E only in PD. Further, we find that demand for emotion exposure is hardly driven by the outcome of the social interaction (or the actions selected). We also document how empathic concern influence other-regarding behavior and how reports of emotional experiences vary across treatments and with the different outcomes of social interactions. Our results highlight the integral role of emotion exposure in social decision making. Environments that facilitate the communication of emotional experiences increase pro-sociality and encourage cooperation.
{"title":"Post-play communication of emotions facilitates prosociality and cooperation","authors":"J. B. Gately, Abdelaziz Alsharawy","doi":"10.3389/frbhe.2024.1304833","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frbhe.2024.1304833","url":null,"abstract":"Social decisions with monetary consequences are often accompanied with emotional consequences. Previous studies document a robust role of pre-play message communication in facilitating pro-sociality and cooperation. Yet, the effects of communicating emotional experiences in social interactions (particularly post-play) remain understudied. Here, we examine the value of a social environment where emotional expressions are shared post-play in contrast to a private environment where emotion exposure is absent. We develop an experimental design that facilitates emotion exposure and can be readily administered in or outside the laboratory. In this pre-registered online study, participants (N = 196) completed incentivized extensions of the Dictator Game (DG) and the Prisoners' Dilemma Game (PD). Participants learned to classify their emotional experiences on the arousal, valence, and dominance dimensions using non-verbal pictorial representations. Our experiment comprised both a within-subject and a between-subject manipulation: each participant completed a control condition (C, no emotional exposure) as well as an emotion exposure condition (Emotions), but the type of exposure varied between subjects (certain exposure, or Emotions-E, or probabilistic exposure, or Emotions-P). In all conditions, participants complete a one-shot DG and PD. We find that emotion exposure increases other-regarding behavior under both Emotions-E and Emotion-P conditions in the DG and under Emotions-E only in PD. Further, we find that demand for emotion exposure is hardly driven by the outcome of the social interaction (or the actions selected). We also document how empathic concern influence other-regarding behavior and how reports of emotional experiences vary across treatments and with the different outcomes of social interactions. Our results highlight the integral role of emotion exposure in social decision making. Environments that facilitate the communication of emotional experiences increase pro-sociality and encourage cooperation.","PeriodicalId":476280,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Behavioral Economics","volume":" 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140994552","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-09DOI: 10.3389/frbhe.2024.1385609
Simon McNair, E. Nyhus, Rob Ranyard
In countries where Christmas is celebrated, people are under pressure in the pre-Christmas period to spend on gift giving and socializing. In two surveys we investigated the role of the meaning of Christmas and other psychological factors in predicting propensity to spend and to borrow at Christmas (UK, N = 190; Norway, N = 234). Factor analysis identified three components of the meaning of Christmas: financial concerns, indulgence, and social aspects. In both surveys: (1) experienced financial hardship predicted lower propensity to spend and greater propensity to borrow; (2) more proactive money management practices predicted lower propensity to borrow; (3) material values predicted both propensity to spend and propensity to borrow; and (4) seeing Christmas as a time for indulgence, experiencing more negative affect, or less positive affect, predicted greater propensity to spend. Additionally: (1) in the UK survey, participants who said that lately they had been feeling more negative (more angry, sad etc.) had a greater propensity to borrow; and (2) in the Norway survey, an obligation gift motivation predicted propensity to spend. The findings show that in addition to experienced financial hardship and proactive money management practices, the psychological factors of material values, affect, and gift motivation play significant roles in propensity to spend and/or borrow at this time of high pressure. We discuss implications for theory and financial interventions.
{"title":"Propensity to spend and borrow at a time of high pressure: the role of the meaning of Christmas and other psychological factors","authors":"Simon McNair, E. Nyhus, Rob Ranyard","doi":"10.3389/frbhe.2024.1385609","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frbhe.2024.1385609","url":null,"abstract":"In countries where Christmas is celebrated, people are under pressure in the pre-Christmas period to spend on gift giving and socializing. In two surveys we investigated the role of the meaning of Christmas and other psychological factors in predicting propensity to spend and to borrow at Christmas (UK, N = 190; Norway, N = 234). Factor analysis identified three components of the meaning of Christmas: financial concerns, indulgence, and social aspects. In both surveys: (1) experienced financial hardship predicted lower propensity to spend and greater propensity to borrow; (2) more proactive money management practices predicted lower propensity to borrow; (3) material values predicted both propensity to spend and propensity to borrow; and (4) seeing Christmas as a time for indulgence, experiencing more negative affect, or less positive affect, predicted greater propensity to spend. Additionally: (1) in the UK survey, participants who said that lately they had been feeling more negative (more angry, sad etc.) had a greater propensity to borrow; and (2) in the Norway survey, an obligation gift motivation predicted propensity to spend. The findings show that in addition to experienced financial hardship and proactive money management practices, the psychological factors of material values, affect, and gift motivation play significant roles in propensity to spend and/or borrow at this time of high pressure. We discuss implications for theory and financial interventions.","PeriodicalId":476280,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Behavioral Economics","volume":" 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140994242","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-03DOI: 10.3389/frbhe.2024.1381080
Kinga Barrafrem, G. Tinghög, D. Västfjäll
Saving is a journey, beginning with the critical decision to initiate the process, take that pivotal first deposit step, and persistently commit to ongoing savings. However, a lot of saving plans fail already before any deposit is made, and even if the first deposit is made, long-run success of savings is far from guaranteed. In this study, we investigate both individual and saving-goal-specific determinants of successful savings.We use real-life savings data (N = 2,619 saving goals of 808 individuals) from a FinTech company in Sweden that helps individuals save for their goals. In addition, we collect a wide range of individual characteristics related to financial behavior: individuals' objective and subjective financial knowledge, self-control, and information avoidance.Our analysis uncovered distinctive patterns at different stages of the saving process. While objective financial knowledge didn't correlate with how much one saves, it was significantly related to the likelihood of making the first deposit. Furthermore, individuals with high self-control exhibited greater savings, though self-control was not related to the initiation of saving. Interestingly, subjective financial literacy and information avoidance showed no significant association with overall savings behavior. Additionally, our study indicated that the attainability of goals plays a crucial role in depositing funds, with more achievable goals having higher deposit likelihoods. Conversely, ambitious goals, despite their challenging nature, tended to attract more substantial savings. Our findings, grounded in real-life data, provide valuable insights into the intricate mechanisms influencing successful saving behaviors, shedding light on the complexities of financial decision-making and goal pursuit.
{"title":"Behavioral and contextual determinants of different stages of saving behavior","authors":"Kinga Barrafrem, G. Tinghög, D. Västfjäll","doi":"10.3389/frbhe.2024.1381080","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frbhe.2024.1381080","url":null,"abstract":"Saving is a journey, beginning with the critical decision to initiate the process, take that pivotal first deposit step, and persistently commit to ongoing savings. However, a lot of saving plans fail already before any deposit is made, and even if the first deposit is made, long-run success of savings is far from guaranteed. In this study, we investigate both individual and saving-goal-specific determinants of successful savings.We use real-life savings data (N = 2,619 saving goals of 808 individuals) from a FinTech company in Sweden that helps individuals save for their goals. In addition, we collect a wide range of individual characteristics related to financial behavior: individuals' objective and subjective financial knowledge, self-control, and information avoidance.Our analysis uncovered distinctive patterns at different stages of the saving process. While objective financial knowledge didn't correlate with how much one saves, it was significantly related to the likelihood of making the first deposit. Furthermore, individuals with high self-control exhibited greater savings, though self-control was not related to the initiation of saving. Interestingly, subjective financial literacy and information avoidance showed no significant association with overall savings behavior. Additionally, our study indicated that the attainability of goals plays a crucial role in depositing funds, with more achievable goals having higher deposit likelihoods. Conversely, ambitious goals, despite their challenging nature, tended to attract more substantial savings. Our findings, grounded in real-life data, provide valuable insights into the intricate mechanisms influencing successful saving behaviors, shedding light on the complexities of financial decision-making and goal pursuit.","PeriodicalId":476280,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Behavioral Economics","volume":"45 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141016946","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-08DOI: 10.3389/frbhe.2024.1377075
Olesja Lammert, Birte Richter, Christian Schütze, Kirsten Thommes, Britta Wrede
Although decision support systems (DSS) that rely on artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly provide explanations to computer and data scientists about opaque features of the decision process, especially when it involves uncertainty, there is still only limited attention to making the process transparent to end users.This paper compares four distinct explanation strategies employed by a DSS, represented by the social agent Floka, designed to assist end users in making decisions under uncertainty. Using an economic experiment with 742 participants who make lottery choices according to the Holt and Laury paradigm, we contrast two explanation strategies offering accurate information (transparent vs. guided) with two strategies prioritizing human-centered explanations (emotional vs. authoritarian) and a baseline (no explanation).Our findings indicate that a guided explanation strategy results in higher user reliance than a transparent strategy. Furthermore, our results suggest that user reliance is contingent on the chosen explanation strategy, and, in some instances, the absence of an explanation can also lead to increased user reliance.
{"title":"Humans in XAI: increased reliance in decision-making under uncertainty by using explanation strategies","authors":"Olesja Lammert, Birte Richter, Christian Schütze, Kirsten Thommes, Britta Wrede","doi":"10.3389/frbhe.2024.1377075","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frbhe.2024.1377075","url":null,"abstract":"Although decision support systems (DSS) that rely on artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly provide explanations to computer and data scientists about opaque features of the decision process, especially when it involves uncertainty, there is still only limited attention to making the process transparent to end users.This paper compares four distinct explanation strategies employed by a DSS, represented by the social agent Floka, designed to assist end users in making decisions under uncertainty. Using an economic experiment with 742 participants who make lottery choices according to the Holt and Laury paradigm, we contrast two explanation strategies offering accurate information (transparent vs. guided) with two strategies prioritizing human-centered explanations (emotional vs. authoritarian) and a baseline (no explanation).Our findings indicate that a guided explanation strategy results in higher user reliance than a transparent strategy. Furthermore, our results suggest that user reliance is contingent on the chosen explanation strategy, and, in some instances, the absence of an explanation can also lead to increased user reliance.","PeriodicalId":476280,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Behavioral Economics","volume":"44 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140076816","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-14DOI: 10.3389/frbhe.2024.1238325
Sabrina Kierspel, Thomas Neumann, Ivo Windrich, Roger Berger, Bodo Vogt
Human decision-making pertaining to gains compared to those pertaining losses is shown to be quite different. However, mixed evidence is provided regarding the effect on the decision-makers' prosocial behaviors; that is, losses are shown to either increase or decrease prosocial behaviors. In this context, the effect of social norms on observed behavior can play a crucial role.To examine this aspect in more detail, we conducted incentivized ultimatum game experiments and analyzed data from three treatments, the control treatments (without specific norm focus), and two different norm-focus treatments (“average behavior” treatment and “self-interested behavior” treatment). In total, 550 participants took part in our experiment. Basically, we found no significant difference between the division of gains and losses in the “control” and “self-interested behavior” treatments.However, we found such a difference in the “average behavior” treatment. In addition, we found that inducing a norm focus leads to less variance in proposers' behavior and a greater concentration of their demands around the induced norm in the “average behavior” treatment. In contrast, we found a higher variance in proposers' behavior in the “self-interested behavior” treatment. In terms of responders' behaviors, we observed a tendency toward a higher frequency of responders' rejections in the loss domain compared to the gains domain.
{"title":"Norm focusing and losses—Evidence of ultimatum game experiments","authors":"Sabrina Kierspel, Thomas Neumann, Ivo Windrich, Roger Berger, Bodo Vogt","doi":"10.3389/frbhe.2024.1238325","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frbhe.2024.1238325","url":null,"abstract":"Human decision-making pertaining to gains compared to those pertaining losses is shown to be quite different. However, mixed evidence is provided regarding the effect on the decision-makers' prosocial behaviors; that is, losses are shown to either increase or decrease prosocial behaviors. In this context, the effect of social norms on observed behavior can play a crucial role.To examine this aspect in more detail, we conducted incentivized ultimatum game experiments and analyzed data from three treatments, the control treatments (without specific norm focus), and two different norm-focus treatments (“average behavior” treatment and “self-interested behavior” treatment). In total, 550 participants took part in our experiment. Basically, we found no significant difference between the division of gains and losses in the “control” and “self-interested behavior” treatments.However, we found such a difference in the “average behavior” treatment. In addition, we found that inducing a norm focus leads to less variance in proposers' behavior and a greater concentration of their demands around the induced norm in the “average behavior” treatment. In contrast, we found a higher variance in proposers' behavior in the “self-interested behavior” treatment. In terms of responders' behaviors, we observed a tendency toward a higher frequency of responders' rejections in the loss domain compared to the gains domain.","PeriodicalId":476280,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Behavioral Economics","volume":"799 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139838752","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-14DOI: 10.3389/frbhe.2024.1238325
Sabrina Kierspel, Thomas Neumann, Ivo Windrich, Roger Berger, Bodo Vogt
Human decision-making pertaining to gains compared to those pertaining losses is shown to be quite different. However, mixed evidence is provided regarding the effect on the decision-makers' prosocial behaviors; that is, losses are shown to either increase or decrease prosocial behaviors. In this context, the effect of social norms on observed behavior can play a crucial role.To examine this aspect in more detail, we conducted incentivized ultimatum game experiments and analyzed data from three treatments, the control treatments (without specific norm focus), and two different norm-focus treatments (“average behavior” treatment and “self-interested behavior” treatment). In total, 550 participants took part in our experiment. Basically, we found no significant difference between the division of gains and losses in the “control” and “self-interested behavior” treatments.However, we found such a difference in the “average behavior” treatment. In addition, we found that inducing a norm focus leads to less variance in proposers' behavior and a greater concentration of their demands around the induced norm in the “average behavior” treatment. In contrast, we found a higher variance in proposers' behavior in the “self-interested behavior” treatment. In terms of responders' behaviors, we observed a tendency toward a higher frequency of responders' rejections in the loss domain compared to the gains domain.
{"title":"Norm focusing and losses—Evidence of ultimatum game experiments","authors":"Sabrina Kierspel, Thomas Neumann, Ivo Windrich, Roger Berger, Bodo Vogt","doi":"10.3389/frbhe.2024.1238325","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frbhe.2024.1238325","url":null,"abstract":"Human decision-making pertaining to gains compared to those pertaining losses is shown to be quite different. However, mixed evidence is provided regarding the effect on the decision-makers' prosocial behaviors; that is, losses are shown to either increase or decrease prosocial behaviors. In this context, the effect of social norms on observed behavior can play a crucial role.To examine this aspect in more detail, we conducted incentivized ultimatum game experiments and analyzed data from three treatments, the control treatments (without specific norm focus), and two different norm-focus treatments (“average behavior” treatment and “self-interested behavior” treatment). In total, 550 participants took part in our experiment. Basically, we found no significant difference between the division of gains and losses in the “control” and “self-interested behavior” treatments.However, we found such a difference in the “average behavior” treatment. In addition, we found that inducing a norm focus leads to less variance in proposers' behavior and a greater concentration of their demands around the induced norm in the “average behavior” treatment. In contrast, we found a higher variance in proposers' behavior in the “self-interested behavior” treatment. In terms of responders' behaviors, we observed a tendency toward a higher frequency of responders' rejections in the loss domain compared to the gains domain.","PeriodicalId":476280,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Behavioral Economics","volume":"5 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139779117","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-01-11DOI: 10.3389/frbhe.2023.1293694
H. Kappes
From an early age, children begin to make decisions about buying things they want, or refraining from buying (e.g., to save up for something better). However, it was unclear how these decisions affect their feelings about their economic resources: does buying make children feel richer or poorer? This manuscript describes three studies that address this gap, with children ages 4 through 12 in the United Kingdom and United States. Older children thought that a child who bought something was richer than a child who refrained from buying, even if the target child was still able to accomplish their goal (Study 1). And for children as young as 4, imagining buying something (compared to imagining refraining from buying) predicted and led to imagining themselves feeling richer (Studies 2–3). The magnitude of the effect of buying vs. refraining on feeling rich did not change appreciably through age 12. These findings complement previous research which looked at children's judgments of their family's social status, by showing that children's feelings about their economic resources also fluctuate in response to actions (buying vs. refraining) that impact those resources. This work contributes to an understanding of how feelings of wealth emerge in childhood and has useful implications for adults who want to support children in developing financial skills.
{"title":"Young children associate buying with feeling richer","authors":"H. Kappes","doi":"10.3389/frbhe.2023.1293694","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frbhe.2023.1293694","url":null,"abstract":"From an early age, children begin to make decisions about buying things they want, or refraining from buying (e.g., to save up for something better). However, it was unclear how these decisions affect their feelings about their economic resources: does buying make children feel richer or poorer? This manuscript describes three studies that address this gap, with children ages 4 through 12 in the United Kingdom and United States. Older children thought that a child who bought something was richer than a child who refrained from buying, even if the target child was still able to accomplish their goal (Study 1). And for children as young as 4, imagining buying something (compared to imagining refraining from buying) predicted and led to imagining themselves feeling richer (Studies 2–3). The magnitude of the effect of buying vs. refraining on feeling rich did not change appreciably through age 12. These findings complement previous research which looked at children's judgments of their family's social status, by showing that children's feelings about their economic resources also fluctuate in response to actions (buying vs. refraining) that impact those resources. This work contributes to an understanding of how feelings of wealth emerge in childhood and has useful implications for adults who want to support children in developing financial skills.","PeriodicalId":476280,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Behavioral Economics","volume":"2 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139438256","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-01-09DOI: 10.3389/frbhe.2023.1274815
Xiaozhi Yang, Chris Retzler, Ian Krajbich, Roger Ratcliff, M. Philiastides
When considering whether to purchase consumer products, people consider both the items' attractiveness and their brand labels. Brands may affect the decision process through various mechanisms. For example, brand labels may provide direct support for their paired products, or they may indirectly affect choice outcomes by changing the way that people evaluate and compare their options. To examine these possibilities, we combined computational modeling with an eye-tracking experiment in which subjects made clothing choices with brand labels either present or absent. Subjects' choices were consistent with both the attractiveness of the clothing items and, to a smaller extent, the appeal of the brands. In line with the direct support mechanism, subjects who spent more time looking at the brands were more likely to choose the options with the preferred brands. When a clothing item was more attractive, subjects were more likely to look longer at the associated brand label, but not vice versa. In line with indirect mechanisms, in the presence of brand labels subjects exerted more caution and showed marginally less attentional bias in their choices. This research sheds light on the interplay between gaze and choice in decisions involving brand information, indicating that brands have both direct and indirect influences on choice.
{"title":"Attention to brand labels affects, and is affected by, evaluations of product attractiveness","authors":"Xiaozhi Yang, Chris Retzler, Ian Krajbich, Roger Ratcliff, M. Philiastides","doi":"10.3389/frbhe.2023.1274815","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frbhe.2023.1274815","url":null,"abstract":"When considering whether to purchase consumer products, people consider both the items' attractiveness and their brand labels. Brands may affect the decision process through various mechanisms. For example, brand labels may provide direct support for their paired products, or they may indirectly affect choice outcomes by changing the way that people evaluate and compare their options. To examine these possibilities, we combined computational modeling with an eye-tracking experiment in which subjects made clothing choices with brand labels either present or absent. Subjects' choices were consistent with both the attractiveness of the clothing items and, to a smaller extent, the appeal of the brands. In line with the direct support mechanism, subjects who spent more time looking at the brands were more likely to choose the options with the preferred brands. When a clothing item was more attractive, subjects were more likely to look longer at the associated brand label, but not vice versa. In line with indirect mechanisms, in the presence of brand labels subjects exerted more caution and showed marginally less attentional bias in their choices. This research sheds light on the interplay between gaze and choice in decisions involving brand information, indicating that brands have both direct and indirect influences on choice.","PeriodicalId":476280,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Behavioral Economics","volume":"36 36","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139442711","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：