首页 > 最新文献

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making最新文献

英文 中文
Consulting Multiple Advisors: When It Hurts and When It Does Not Hurt the Advisor–Advisee Relationship? 咨询多位顾问:什么时候会伤害顾问与受访者的关系,什么时候不会?
IF 2 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Pub Date : 2024-04-04 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.2382
Mauricio Palmeira, Gerri Spassova

Consulting multiple advisors tends to improve decision quality; however, limited understanding exists regarding how advisors respond to the presence of co-advisors. Previous research has cautioned about the potential interpersonal costs of seeking advice from multiple sources. It suggests that advisors may perceive their advice as less likely to be utilized, diminishing their willingness to continue assisting the seeker. In contrast, we propose that advisors are generally unconcerned if seekers consult others, as long as they are informed before offering advice. We argue that advisors do not closely monitor or dwell on the utilization of their advice and maintain a positive attitude toward the seeker unless they infer rejection of their advice. In three studies, we show that disclosing a co-advisor upfront completely eliminates any negative interpersonal effects by rendering inferences about advice rejection implausible. Advisors respond as if they were the sole advisor irrespective of the presence of multiple co-advisors and regardless of whether they are consulted first of second.

咨询多个顾问往往会提高决策质量;然而,人们对顾问如何应对共同顾问的存在了解有限。以往的研究提醒人们注意从多个来源寻求建议的潜在人际成本。这表明,顾问可能会认为自己的建议不太可能被采纳,从而降低他们继续为寻求者提供帮助的意愿。与此相反,我们认为,如果求职者向他人咨询,顾问一般不会在意,只要他们在提供建议之前了解了相关信息即可。我们认为,除非顾问推断出求职者拒绝接受他们的建议,否则他们不会密切关注或纠缠于建议的使用情况,并对求职者保持积极的态度。在三项研究中,我们表明,预先披露共同顾问会使拒绝建议的推断变得不可信,从而完全消除任何负面的人际影响。无论是否存在多个共同顾问,也无论是否先咨询或后咨询顾问,顾问的反应都如同他们是唯一的顾问。
{"title":"Consulting Multiple Advisors: When It Hurts and When It Does Not Hurt the Advisor–Advisee Relationship?","authors":"Mauricio Palmeira,&nbsp;Gerri Spassova","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2382","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2382","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Consulting multiple advisors tends to improve decision quality; however, limited understanding exists regarding how advisors respond to the presence of co-advisors. Previous research has cautioned about the potential interpersonal costs of seeking advice from multiple sources. It suggests that advisors may perceive their advice as less likely to be utilized, diminishing their willingness to continue assisting the seeker. In contrast, we propose that advisors are generally unconcerned if seekers consult others, as long as they are informed before offering advice. We argue that advisors do not closely monitor or dwell on the utilization of their advice and maintain a positive attitude toward the seeker unless they infer rejection of their advice. In three studies, we show that disclosing a co-advisor upfront completely eliminates any negative interpersonal effects by rendering inferences about advice rejection implausible. Advisors respond as if they were the sole advisor irrespective of the presence of multiple co-advisors and regardless of whether they are consulted first of second.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"37 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140348628","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
The Aptly Buried “I” in Experience: Experiential Purchases Promote More Social Connection Than Material Purchases 体验中恰如其分的 "我":体验式购买比物质购买更能促进社会联系
IF 2 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Pub Date : 2024-03-26 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.2376
Amit Kumar, Thomas C. Mann, Thomas Gilovich

Experiential purchases (focused on doing rather than having) provide more satisfaction than material goods. Here, we examine a different downstream consequence of spending money on experiences: fostering social connection. Consumers reported feeling more kinship with someone who had made a similar experiential purchase than someone who had made a similar material purchase—a result tied to the greater centrality of experiences to one's identity. This greater sense of connection that experiences provide applied even when someone else had made a similar, but superior purchase. Participants also reported feeling more connected to others in general, not just those who have made the same purchase, when reflecting on experiential consumption—and these feelings of connection were expressed in a greater desire to engage in social activities when participants considered their experiential purchases than when they considered their material purchases. Together, these results demonstrate that experiential consumption enhances people's social connection quite broadly.

与物质产品相比,体验式消费(侧重于 "做 "而非 "拥有")能带来更多的满足感。在此,我们研究了花钱购买体验的另一个下游结果:促进社会联系。消费者表示,与进行类似体验式消费的人相比,与进行类似物质消费的人更有亲切感--这一结果与体验在个人身份中的核心地位有关。即使别人进行了类似但更高级的购买,体验带来的这种更强的联系感也同样适用。参与者还报告说,在反思体验式消费时,他们普遍感到与他人的联系更紧密,而不仅仅是那些购买了相同物品的人。这些结果共同表明,体验式消费能广泛地增强人们的社会联系。
{"title":"The Aptly Buried “I” in Experience: Experiential Purchases Promote More Social Connection Than Material Purchases","authors":"Amit Kumar,&nbsp;Thomas C. Mann,&nbsp;Thomas Gilovich","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2376","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2376","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Experiential purchases (focused on <i>doing</i> rather than <i>having</i>) provide more satisfaction than material goods. Here, we examine a different downstream consequence of spending money on experiences: fostering social connection. Consumers reported feeling more kinship with someone who had made a similar experiential purchase than someone who had made a similar material purchase—a result tied to the greater centrality of experiences to one's identity. This greater sense of connection that experiences provide applied even when someone else had made a similar, but superior purchase. Participants also reported feeling more connected to others in general, not just those who have made the same purchase, when reflecting on experiential consumption—and these feelings of connection were expressed in a greater desire to engage in social activities when participants considered their experiential purchases than when they considered their material purchases. Together, these results demonstrate that experiential consumption enhances people's social connection quite broadly.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"37 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140297195","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
May the Intentional Candidate Win: The Effect of Global Performance Information on Intentionality Attributions and Managerial Hot-Hand Predictions 愿有意者胜出:全球绩效信息对有意性归因和管理者热手预测的影响
IF 2 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Pub Date : 2024-03-25 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.2379
João Niza Braga, Sofia Jacinto

In organizational contexts, managers often have to judge and predict others' performance. Previous research has consistently shown that when predicting someone's performance, people expect that a local sequence of successful outcomes will continue—the hot-hand. The present work proposes that hot-hand predictions occur when local streaks are dispositionally attributed to the agents' intentionality and explores how the inclusion of global performance success rates may guide intentionality inferences and moderate predictions of success after a streak. Three studies, using within- and between-subjects' designs, manipulate agent's global success rate and show that after a local streak, intentionality attributions and predictions of success are lower when success rates are low (vs. high or unknown); intentionality attributions mediate the effect of success rate on predictions; hot-hand predictions are lower for low success rate agents (vs. high or unknown) as they are not perceived as more responsible for streaky than for alternated performances.

在组织环境中,管理者经常需要判断和预测他人的绩效。以往的研究一直表明,在预测他人的绩效时,人们会期望成功结果的局部序列会持续下去,这就是 "热手"(hot-hand)。本研究提出,当局部连胜被归因于行为主体的意向性时,就会出现热手预测;本研究还探讨了将全局绩效成功率纳入其中如何指导意向性推断,以及连胜后成功预测的适度性。三项研究采用了被试内和被试间设计,操纵了被试的全局成功率,结果表明,在局部连胜之后,成功率低(相对于高或未知)时,意向性归因和成功预测较低;意向性归因调节了成功率对预测的影响;成功率低(相对于高或未知)的被试的热手预测较低,因为他们不认为连胜比交替表现更有责任。
{"title":"May the Intentional Candidate Win: The Effect of Global Performance Information on Intentionality Attributions and Managerial Hot-Hand Predictions","authors":"João Niza Braga,&nbsp;Sofia Jacinto","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2379","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2379","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In organizational contexts, managers often have to judge and predict others' performance. Previous research has consistently shown that when predicting someone's performance, people expect that a local sequence of successful outcomes will continue—the hot-hand. The present work proposes that hot-hand predictions occur when local streaks are dispositionally attributed to the agents' intentionality and explores how the inclusion of global performance success rates may guide intentionality inferences and moderate predictions of success after a streak. Three studies, using within- and between-subjects' designs, manipulate agent's global success rate and show that after a local streak, intentionality attributions and predictions of success are lower when success rates are low (vs. high or unknown); intentionality attributions mediate the effect of success rate on predictions; hot-hand predictions are lower for low success rate agents (vs. high or unknown) as they are not perceived as more responsible for streaky than for alternated performances.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"37 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140291384","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Extreme Outcomes Accentuate Overweighting of Low Probabilities and Underweighting of High Probabilities in Experience-Based Choice 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
IF 2 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Pub Date : 2024-03-21 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.2380
Thomas W. Elston, Hartmut Leuthold, Ian G. Mackenzie, Victor Mittelstädt

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.

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。
{"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":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2380","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":"37 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.2380","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140181697","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Self-Distancing Regulates the Effect of Incidental Anger (vs. Fear) on Affective Decision-Making Under Uncertainty 自我疏导调节偶发愤怒(与恐惧)对不确定性条件下情感决策的影响
IF 2 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Pub Date : 2024-03-19 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.2378
Lewend Mayiwar, Thorvald Hærem, Erik Løhre

Emotions integral to a task are often adaptive, particularly in situations where outcomes and probabilities are not known. However, decisions are also influenced by emotions that arise from situations unrelated to the task. This is especially the case with negative emotions like fear and anger, which also tend to be accompanied by ruminative thinking that might divert decision-makers' attention from the task at hand. In two preregistered experiments, we show how self-distancing regulates the influence of incidental anger (vs. fear) on decision-making under uncertainty. Participants recalled and reflected on a fear-related or anger-related event from either a self-immersed or self-distanced perspective. Next, they completed a task that is commonly used to measure affective decision-making under uncertainty, the Iowa Gambling Task. The results in both experiments indicated that self-immersed angry (vs. fearful) decision-makers were significantly slower to avoid the risky, disadvantageous decks. These findings demonstrate how the ways in which we process negative emotional events shape their carryover effects in decision-making under uncertainty and point to self-distancing as a potential tool to control incidental emotional influences.

与任务密不可分的情绪往往具有适应性,尤其是在结果和概率未知的情况下。然而,决策也会受到与任务无关的情绪的影响。恐惧和愤怒等负面情绪尤其如此,这些情绪往往伴随着反思,可能会转移决策者对手头任务的注意力。在两个预先登记的实验中,我们展示了自我分散是如何调节偶发愤怒(与恐惧)对不确定情况下决策的影响的。参与者从自我沉浸或自我分散的角度回忆和反思与恐惧或愤怒相关的事件。接下来,他们完成了一项通常用于测量不确定情况下情感决策的任务--爱荷华赌博任务。这两项实验的结果都表明,自我沉浸在愤怒(与恐惧)中的决策者在回避有风险的不利牌面时速度明显较慢。这些发现证明了我们处理负面情绪事件的方式如何影响其在不确定情况下对决策的影响,并指出自我沉浸是控制偶然情绪影响的一种潜在工具。
{"title":"Self-Distancing Regulates the Effect of Incidental Anger (vs. Fear) on Affective Decision-Making Under Uncertainty","authors":"Lewend Mayiwar,&nbsp;Thorvald Hærem,&nbsp;Erik Løhre","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2378","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2378","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Emotions integral to a task are often adaptive, particularly in situations where outcomes and probabilities are not known. However, decisions are also influenced by emotions that arise from situations unrelated to the task. This is especially the case with negative emotions like fear and anger, which also tend to be accompanied by ruminative thinking that might divert decision-makers' attention from the task at hand. In two preregistered experiments, we show how self-distancing regulates the influence of incidental anger (vs. fear) on decision-making under uncertainty. Participants recalled and reflected on a fear-related or anger-related event from either a self-immersed or self-distanced perspective. Next, they completed a task that is commonly used to measure affective decision-making under uncertainty, the Iowa Gambling Task. The results in both experiments indicated that self-immersed angry (vs. fearful) decision-makers were significantly slower to avoid the risky, disadvantageous decks. These findings demonstrate how the ways in which we process negative emotional events shape their carryover effects in decision-making under uncertainty and point to self-distancing as a potential tool to control incidental emotional influences.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"37 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.2378","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140164351","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Attention! Do We Really Need Attention Checks? 注意!我们真的需要检查注意力吗?
IF 2 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Pub Date : 2024-03-15 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.2377
Yefim Roth, Ofir Yakobi

There is ongoing debate over the usefulness of and need for attention checks in online experiments. This paper investigates the value of these tests in decisions-from-experience (i.e., multi-trial repeated choice) tasks. In five studies (Ntotal = 1519), we comprehensively compared the behavior of attentive and inattentive participants (i.e., those who passed or failed a simple attention check) among online participants; and also compared those results to the results of lab studies reported elsewhere. We found meaningful differences between the behavior of attentive and inattentive participants even at the first trial. Overall, attentive participants were more likely to notice less-obvious average values of the different alternatives, while inattentive participants exhibited higher sensitivity to typical outcomes. The findings show that even one simple attention test is sufficient to differentiate between attentive and inattentive participants in repetitive tasks. Importantly, our results fully replicated three previously run lab studies among attentive participants, but not inattentive ones. This finding highlights the importance of using attention tests to avoid spurious conclusions.

关于在线实验中注意力检查的有用性和必要性一直存在争议。本文研究了这些测试在经验决策(即多试重复选择)任务中的价值。在五项研究(总人数 = 1519)中,我们全面比较了在线参与者中注意力集中者和注意力不集中者(即通过或未通过简单注意力检查者)的行为,并将这些结果与其他地方报告的实验室研究结果进行了比较。我们发现,即使在第一次试验中,注意力集中的参与者和注意力不集中的参与者的行为也存在明显差异。总体而言,注意力集中的参与者更容易注意到不同备选方案中不那么明显的平均值,而注意力不集中的参与者则对典型结果表现出更高的敏感度。研究结果表明,即使是一个简单的注意力测试,也足以在重复性任务中区分注意力集中和注意力不集中的参与者。重要的是,我们的结果完全重复了之前在注意力集中的参与者中进行的三项实验室研究,但没有重复注意力不集中的参与者。这一发现强调了使用注意力测试以避免得出虚假结论的重要性。
{"title":"Attention! Do We Really Need Attention Checks?","authors":"Yefim Roth,&nbsp;Ofir Yakobi","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2377","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2377","url":null,"abstract":"<p>There is ongoing debate over the usefulness of and need for attention checks in online experiments. This paper investigates the value of these tests in decisions-from-experience (i.e., multi-trial repeated choice) tasks. In five studies (<i>N</i>total = 1519), we comprehensively compared the behavior of attentive and inattentive participants (i.e., those who passed or failed a simple attention check) among online participants; and also compared those results to the results of lab studies reported elsewhere. We found meaningful differences between the behavior of attentive and inattentive participants even at the first trial. Overall, attentive participants were more likely to notice less-obvious average values of the different alternatives, while inattentive participants exhibited higher sensitivity to typical outcomes. The findings show that even one simple attention test is sufficient to differentiate between attentive and inattentive participants in repetitive tasks. Importantly, our results fully replicated three previously run lab studies among attentive participants, but not inattentive ones. This finding highlights the importance of using attention tests to avoid spurious conclusions.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"37 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.2377","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140135403","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Metaknowledge of Experts Versus Nonexperts: Do Experts Know Better What They Do and Do Not Know? 专家与非专家的元知识:专家更了解自己知道和不知道的东西吗?
IF 2 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Pub Date : 2024-03-15 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.2375
Yuyan Han, David Dunning

Experts are usually valued for their knowledge. However, do they possess metaknowledge, that is, knowing how much they know as well as the limits of that knowledge? The current research examined expert metaknowledge by comparing experts' and nonexperts' confidence when they made correct versus incorrect choices as well as the difference in-between (e.g., Murphy's Resolution and Yate's Separation). Across three fields of expertise (climate science, psychological statistics, and investment), we found that experts tended to display better metaknowledge than nonexperts but still showed systematic and important imperfections. They were less overconfident than nonexperts in general and expressed more confidence in their correct answers. However, they tend to exhibit low Murphy's Resolution similar to nonexperts and gave endorsed wrong answers with equal to higher confidence than did their nonexpert peers. Thus, it appears that expertise is associated with knowing with more certainty what one knows but conceals awareness of what one does not know.

专家通常因其知识渊博而受到重视。然而,他们是否拥有元知识,即知道自己知道多少以及这些知识的局限性?目前的研究通过比较专家和非专家在做出正确与错误选择时的信心以及两者之间的差异(如墨菲决议和亚特分离),对专家的元知识进行了研究。在三个专业领域(气候科学、心理统计和投资)中,我们发现专家往往比非专家表现出更好的元知识,但仍然表现出系统性的重要缺陷。总体而言,他们比非专家更少过度自信,对自己的正确答案也更有信心。然而,与非专家类似,他们往往表现出较低的墨菲分辨力,并且与非专家相比,他们在认可错误答案时具有同等或更高的自信。由此看来,专业知识与更确定地知道自己知道什么有关,但却隐藏了对自己不知道什么的意识。
{"title":"Metaknowledge of Experts Versus Nonexperts: Do Experts Know Better What They Do and Do Not Know?","authors":"Yuyan Han,&nbsp;David Dunning","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2375","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2375","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Experts are usually valued for their knowledge. However, do they possess metaknowledge, that is, knowing how much they know as well as the limits of that knowledge? The current research examined expert metaknowledge by comparing experts' and nonexperts' confidence when they made correct versus incorrect choices as well as the difference in-between (e.g., Murphy's Resolution and Yate's Separation). Across three fields of expertise (climate science, psychological statistics, and investment), we found that experts tended to display better metaknowledge than nonexperts but still showed systematic and important imperfections. They were less overconfident than nonexperts in general and expressed more confidence in their correct answers. However, they tend to exhibit low Murphy's Resolution similar to nonexperts and gave endorsed wrong answers with equal to higher confidence than did their nonexpert peers. Thus, it appears that expertise is associated with knowing with more certainty what one knows but conceals awareness of what one does not know.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"37 2","pages":"1-18"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.2375","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140135407","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Mixed-effects regression weights for advice taking and related phenomena of information sampling and utilization 建议采纳与信息取样和利用相关现象的混合效应回归权重
IF 2 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Pub Date : 2024-03-13 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.2369
Tobias R. Rebholz, Marco Biella, Mandy Hütter

Advice taking and related research is dominated by deterministic weighting indices, specifically ratio-of-differences-based formulas for investigating informational influence. Their arithmetic is intuitively simple, but they pose several measurement problems and restrict research to a particular paradigmatic approach. As a solution, we propose to specify how strongly peoples' judgments are influenced by externally provided evidence by fitting corresponding mixed-effects regression models. Our approach explicitly distinguishes between endogenous components, such as updated beliefs, and exogenous components, such as independent initial judgments and advice. Crucially, mixed-effects regression coefficients of various exogenous sources of information also reflect individual weighting but are based on a conceptually consistent representation of the endogenous judgment process. The formal derivation of the proposed weighting measures is accompanied by a detailed elaboration on their most important technical and statistical subtleties. We use this modeling approach to revisit empirical findings from several paradigms investigating algorithm aversion, sequential collaboration, and advice taking. In summary, we replicate and extend the original finding of algorithm appreciation and initially demonstrate a lack of evidence for both systematic order effects in sequential collaboration as well as differential weighting of multiple pieces of advice. In addition to opening new avenues for innovative research, appropriate modeling of information sampling and utilization has the potential to increase the reproducibility and replicability of behavioral science. Furthermore, the proposed method is relevant beyond advice taking, as mixed-effects regression weights can also inform research on related cognitive phenomena such as multidimensional belief updating, anchoring effects, hindsight bias, or attitude change.

建议采纳及相关研究主要采用确定性加权指数,特别是基于差异比率的公式来调查信息影响。它们的计算方法直观简单,但却带来了一些测量问题,并将研究限制在特定的范式方法中。作为一种解决方案,我们建议通过拟合相应的混合效应回归模型来明确人们的判断受外部证据影响的程度。我们的方法明确区分了内生成分(如更新的信念)和外生成分(如独立的初始判断和建议)。最重要的是,各种外生信息源的混合效应回归系数也反映了个人权重,但它们是基于概念上一致的内生判断过程。在正式推导所建议的加权措施的同时,我们还对其最重要的技术和统计微妙之处进行了详细阐述。我们利用这种建模方法重新审视了研究算法厌恶、顺序协作和建议采纳的几个范式的经验发现。总之,我们复制并扩展了算法鉴赏的原始发现,并初步证明了在顺序协作中缺乏系统顺序效应的证据,也缺乏对多个建议进行不同权重的证据。除了为创新研究开辟新途径外,对信息采样和利用进行适当建模还有可能提高行为科学的可重复性和可复制性。此外,所建议的方法不仅适用于建议的采纳,因为混合效应回归权重还可以为相关认知现象的研究提供信息,如多维信念更新、锚定效应、事后偏差或态度改变。
{"title":"Mixed-effects regression weights for advice taking and related phenomena of information sampling and utilization","authors":"Tobias R. Rebholz,&nbsp;Marco Biella,&nbsp;Mandy Hütter","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2369","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2369","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Advice taking and related research is dominated by deterministic weighting indices, specifically ratio-of-differences-based formulas for investigating informational influence. Their arithmetic is intuitively simple, but they pose several measurement problems and restrict research to a particular paradigmatic approach. As a solution, we propose to specify how strongly peoples' judgments are influenced by externally provided evidence by fitting corresponding mixed-effects regression models. Our approach explicitly distinguishes between endogenous components, such as updated beliefs, and exogenous components, such as independent initial judgments and advice. Crucially, mixed-effects regression coefficients of various exogenous sources of information also reflect individual weighting but are based on a conceptually consistent representation of the endogenous judgment process. The formal derivation of the proposed weighting measures is accompanied by a detailed elaboration on their most important technical and statistical subtleties. We use this modeling approach to revisit empirical findings from several paradigms investigating algorithm aversion, sequential collaboration, and advice taking. In summary, we replicate and extend the original finding of algorithm appreciation and initially demonstrate a lack of evidence for both systematic order effects in sequential collaboration as well as differential weighting of multiple pieces of advice. In addition to opening new avenues for innovative research, appropriate modeling of information sampling and utilization has the potential to increase the reproducibility and replicability of behavioral science. Furthermore, the proposed method is relevant beyond advice taking, as mixed-effects regression weights can also inform research on related cognitive phenomena such as multidimensional belief updating, anchoring effects, hindsight bias, or attitude change.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"37 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.2369","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140123706","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Boundary conditions for the positive skew bias 正偏斜偏置的边界条件
IF 2 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Pub Date : 2024-02-28 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.2372
Colleen C. Frank, Sade J. Abiodun, Kendra L. Seaman

Gambles that involve a large but unlikely gain coupled with a small but likely loss—like a lottery ticket—are known as positively skewed. There is evidence that people tend to prefer these positively skewed choices, leading to what is called a positive-skew bias. In this study, we attempt to better understand under what conditions people are more drawn towards positively skewed, relative to symmetric, gambles. Based on the animal literature, there is reason to believe that preference for skewed gambles is dependent on the strength of the skew, with a greater preference for more strongly skewed options. In two online studies (Study 1: N = 209; Study 2: N = 210), healthy participants across the lifespan (ages 22–85) made a series of choices between a positively skewed risky gamble and either a certain outcome (Study 1) or risky symmetric gamble (Study 2). Logistic regression analyses revealed that people were more likely to choose moderately and strongly skewed gambles over certain outcomes, with the exception of when there were large potential losses (Study 1). However, a stronger skewness did not increase preference for positively skewed gambles over symmetric gambles, findings that also may depend on the valence of the expected outcome (Study 2). Taken together, these results suggest that there may be a greater preference for more strongly positively skewed gambles, but it (1) is dependent on what other gamble is presented and (2) is most prevalent for positive expected values. Additionally, contrary to previous findings, we did not find strong evidence of an age-related increase in positive skew bias in either study. However, exploratory analyses revealed that decision making strategy and cognitive abilities may play a role.

涉及大但不可能获得的收益与小但可能遭受的损失(如彩票)的赌博被称为正向偏斜。有证据表明,人们倾向于选择这些正向偏斜的选择,这就是所谓的正向偏斜偏差。在本研究中,我们试图更好地了解在什么情况下,相对于对称赌博,人们更倾向于正偏赌博。根据动物研究的文献,我们有理由相信,人们对偏斜赌博的偏好取决于偏斜的强度,人们会更偏好偏斜度更高的选项。在两项在线研究(研究 1:N = 209;研究 2:N = 210)中,不同年龄段(22-85 岁)的健康参与者在正偏斜风险赌博和确定结果(研究 1)或对称风险赌博(研究 2)之间进行了一系列选择。逻辑回归分析表明,在某些结果面前,人们更倾向于选择中度偏斜和强烈偏斜的赌博,但潜在损失较大的情况除外(研究 1)。然而,与对称赌博相比,较强的偏斜度并没有增加人们对正偏斜赌博的偏好,这一结果也可能取决于预期结果的价值(研究 2)。综合来看,这些结果表明,人们可能会更偏好更强的正偏斜赌博,但这种偏好(1)取决于呈现的其他赌博,(2)对正期望值的偏好最为普遍。此外,与之前的研究结果相反,在这两项研究中,我们都没有发现与年龄相关的正偏斜偏差增加的有力证据。然而,探索性分析表明,决策策略和认知能力可能在其中发挥了作用。
{"title":"Boundary conditions for the positive skew bias","authors":"Colleen C. Frank,&nbsp;Sade J. Abiodun,&nbsp;Kendra L. Seaman","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2372","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2372","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Gambles that involve a large but unlikely gain coupled with a small but likely loss—like a lottery ticket—are known as positively skewed. There is evidence that people tend to prefer these positively skewed choices, leading to what is called a positive-skew bias. In this study, we attempt to better understand under what conditions people are more drawn towards positively skewed, relative to symmetric, gambles. Based on the animal literature, there is reason to believe that preference for skewed gambles is dependent on the strength of the skew, with a greater preference for more strongly skewed options. In two online studies (Study 1: <i>N</i> = 209; Study 2: <i>N</i> = 210), healthy participants across the lifespan (ages 22–85) made a series of choices between a positively skewed risky gamble and either a certain outcome (Study 1) or risky symmetric gamble (Study 2). Logistic regression analyses revealed that people were more likely to choose moderately and strongly skewed gambles over certain outcomes, with the exception of when there were large potential losses (Study 1). However, a stronger skewness did not increase preference for positively skewed gambles over symmetric gambles, findings that also may depend on the valence of the expected outcome (Study 2). Taken together, these results suggest that there may be a greater preference for more strongly positively skewed gambles, but it (1) is dependent on what other gamble is presented and (2) is most prevalent for positive expected values. Additionally, contrary to previous findings, we did not find strong evidence of an age-related increase in positive skew bias in either study. However, exploratory analyses revealed that decision making strategy and cognitive abilities may play a role.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"37 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139993935","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Algorithms in selection decisions: Effective, but unappreciated 遴选决策中的算法:有效,但不受重视
IF 2 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Pub Date : 2024-02-11 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.2368
Hagai Rabinovitch, David V. Budescu, Yoella Bereby Meyer

Selection decisions are often affected by irrelevant variables such as gender or race. People can discount this irrelevant information by adjusting their predictions accordingly, yet they fail to do so intuitively. In five online studies (N = 1077), participants were asked to make selection decisions in which the selection test was affected by irrelevant attributes. We examined whether in such decisions people are willing to be advised by algorithms, human advisors or prefer to decide without advice. We found that people fail to adjust for irrelevant information by themselves, and those who received advice from an algorithm or human advisor made better decisions. Interestingly, although most participants stated they prefer advice from human advisors, they tend to rely equally on algorithms in actual selection tasks. The sole exception is when they are forced to choose between an algorithm and a human advisor. In that case, they pick human advisors. We conclude that while algorithms may not be people's preferred source of advice in selection decisions, they are equally useful and can be implemented.

选拔决策往往会受到性别或种族等无关变量的影响。人们可以通过相应调整自己的预测来忽略这些不相关的信息,但他们却不能凭直觉这样做。在五项在线研究(N = 1077)中,参与者被要求做出选择决策,其中选择测试受到无关属性的影响。我们研究了在此类决策中,人们是愿意接受算法、人类顾问的建议,还是更愿意在没有建议的情况下做出决定。我们发现,人们无法自行调整无关信息,而接受算法或人工顾问建议的人则能做出更好的决策。有趣的是,尽管大多数参与者表示他们更喜欢人类顾问的建议,但在实际选择任务中,他们往往同样依赖算法。唯一的例外是,当他们被迫在算法和人类顾问之间做出选择时。在这种情况下,他们会选择人类顾问。我们的结论是,虽然算法可能不是人们在选择决策中首选的建议来源,但它们同样有用,而且可以实施。
{"title":"Algorithms in selection decisions: Effective, but unappreciated","authors":"Hagai Rabinovitch,&nbsp;David V. Budescu,&nbsp;Yoella Bereby Meyer","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2368","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2368","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Selection decisions are often affected by irrelevant variables such as gender or race. People can discount this irrelevant information by adjusting their predictions accordingly, yet they fail to do so intuitively. In five online studies (<i>N</i> = 1077), participants were asked to make selection decisions in which the selection test was affected by irrelevant attributes. We examined whether in such decisions people are willing to be advised by algorithms, human advisors or prefer to decide without advice. We found that people fail to adjust for irrelevant information by themselves, and those who received advice from an algorithm or human advisor made better decisions. Interestingly, although most participants stated they prefer advice from human advisors, they tend to rely equally on algorithms in actual selection tasks. The sole exception is when they are forced to choose between an algorithm and a human advisor. In that case, they pick human advisors. We conclude that while algorithms may not be people's preferred source of advice in selection decisions, they are equally useful and can be implemented.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"37 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.2368","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139720077","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
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
×
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
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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