Journal of Behavioral Decision Making最新文献

Many deviations from rational choice imply the neglect of important evidence and suggest the use of simple heuristics. In contrast, other deviations imply sensitivity to irrelevant evidence and suggest the use of overly complex rules. The current analysis takes two steps toward identifying the conditions that trigger these contradictory deviations from efficient reasoning. The first step involves a theoretical analysis. It shows that the contradictory deviations can be captured without assuming the use of rules of different complexity in different settings. Both deviations can be the product of a reliance on small samples of similar past experiences. This reliance on small samples triggers apparent overcomplexity when the optimal rule is simple, but more complex rules yield better outcomes in most cases; the opposite tendency, oversimplification, emerges when the optimal rule is complex, and simple rules yield better outcomes in most cases. The second step involves a preregistered experiment with 325 participants (Mechanical Turk workers). The experiment shows that human decision makers exhibit the pattern predicted by the reliance-on-small-samples assumption. In the experiment, participants chose between the status quo and a risky alternative in a multi-attribute decision with three binary cues. They used uninformative cues when this strategy was best in most cases yet ignored two informative cues when this strategy was best in most cases. In addition, describing the cues as recommendations given by three experts increased the tendency to follow the modal recommendation (even when reliance on only one of the experts was optimal), but people still behaved as though they relied on a small sample of past experiences.

Over time, research on order effects during information searching and choice tasks has received thorough attention in marketing, psychology, and economics. When early information search influences choice in favor of that information, it is called primacy; the equivalent for later information search is called recency. However, research that disentangles primacy and recency effects during multi-attribute product choice, as well as studies on the cognitive processes underlying primacy and recency effects are lacking. I address this gap with two choice-based conjoint experiments combined with eye tracking and by means of multilevel mediation analysis. Consistent with my prediction that to counterbalance the impact of decision irrelevant information on choice through early information search by later information search is mentally too costly, I find that “spatial position” biases choice due to primacy rather than recency. This bias, however, is small. This suggests that for decision irrelevant information, the causal influence of attention on choice generalizes to more complex decisions, though with little impact. Consistent with my prediction that the level of information elaboration moderates the mediation process, increasing task motivation decreases the dominance of primacy.

The serial-order effect wherein originality increases over time is one of the most robust findings in modern psychology. This effect, found in either individual or group sessions, is based on associative and spreading activation mechanisms: Mental association takes place in temporal sequential order from commonly (closely) to unusually (distantly) related semantic concepts stored in long-term memory. Thus, data from previous studies might suggest that, in collective problem-solving, we endure long meetings and pay closer attention to ideas presented toward the end of the meeting. However, members in innovative organizations have been reported to typically generate ideas on their own before group brainstorming. We hypothesized that in the subsequent group brainstorming session members would state their most appealing ideas first due to impression management. Our results from the individual-then-group hybrid brainstorming paradigm show that idea quality during the group session peaks early and then decays, in terms of both the number of high-quality ideas produced and the proportion of ideas that are high-quality. This “reverse” serial-order effect implies that meeting for a reasonably brief time and looking into ideas shared early during the meeting may lead to better decisions—if individuals generated ideas prior to the meeting. We also found that flexibility (the rate at which new idea categories were introduced) dropped rapidly, but at a certain point of time, it stopped decreasing. This potentially suggests that extended group interaction after individual idea generation could bring greater idea diversity rather than higher overall quality. In addition, we found that the updated, cognitively constrained organizational norm for brainstorming, which likely narrows the scope of search, led to greater idea quantity (fluency), quality, and flexibility than the traditional, unconstrained norm. Our work challenges the traditional application of spreading activation theory to interpersonal, group, or organizational settings and calls for attention to the specific communicative processes of problem-solving and decision-making in question.

Findings from correlational research suggest that people more likely to take risk during COVID-19. However, little is known about the causal role of the coronavirus threat in the emergence of risk taking behaviors. Here, we conducted three diverse studies involving questionnaire-based responses and actual measures of risk-taking behavior across nonmoral and immoral domains. In support of our theoretical perspective, Experiment 1 revealed that participants who were exposed to the COVID-19 threat were more prone to take risks than those in the control condition. Experiment 2 aimed to replicate the findings of Experiment 1 using a behavioral measure to capture participants' interest in risk taking. The results showed that the salience of COVID-19 can increase individuals' willingness to take risks in a nonmoral domain, namely, bungee jumping. Experiment 3 provided a behavioral confirmation of the relationship uncovered in an immoral domain (i.e., bribery). Across three experiments, we found that boredom state mediated the effect of the pandemic influence on risk taking. Together, our research rounds out the picture of contributors to risk taking and underscores the cumulative destructive effect of COVID-19. We discuss implications for research on COVID-19 and risk taking, as well as practical significance for society at large.

We examine the impact of advice use on perceptions of competence. We propose that advice use sends opposing signals to an advisor regarding the advisee's competence. Greater advice use signals respect for the advisor, which is reciprocated by enhancing competence perceptions. However, greater advice use also indicates a lack of independence in judgment, reducing perceptions of competence. As a result, as advice use increases (i.e., gets closer to the exact advice provided), perceptions of competence first increase but then decrease. We further argue that the impact of advice use on competence is influenced by perceptions of information accessibility, such that when advisor and advisee have access to the same information, lower reliance on advice is more tolerated and less impactful on competence. We show that this effect is conceptually and empirically distinct from advisor's confidence and subsequent preference for advice use.

Researchers have long been trying to understand why individuals dislike annuities. Here, we investigate if the process individuals use to assess the financial value of annuities may lead them to inaccurately value annuities. In Study 1, participants were asked to assess the monthly payments associated with a specific annuity lump sum or the annuity lump sum associated with a specific monthly payment. They were then asked to describe how they arrived at their answers. We find that when making this assessment, 42% of participants report attempts at using math, with some even describing mathematical formulas. Most other participants reported guessing instead. Reporting attempts at math is more common among participants with higher financial literacy and numeracy. Reported attempts at math, financial literacy, and numeracy predict arriving at more realistic financial values for annuities, as well as incorporating assessments of life expectancy in the math. Based on this process knowledge, we then designed an experiment in Study 2 and tested the effect of presenting information about life expectancy, providing feedback about payouts or their combination. We find that we can thereby change the assessed financial value of annuities and increase participants' interest in annuities, especially among participants that reported attempts at using math. Understanding the processes individuals use to assess the value of annuities informs theory and practice.

The present paper is an exploratory study of the anchoring bias among individuals with autism. Anchoring bias is one of the most robust choice heuristics. The anchoring bias is measured and compared among adults with autism and age-, gender-, and education level-matched, neurotypical controls. The study differentiates between high and low anchors. Results show that individuals with autism are generally equally susceptible to the anchoring bias as neurotypical individuals in judgment and decision making.

Conformity—shifting one's behavior patterns towards group norms—is both common and powerful. Prior research shows that conformity can drive behavioral patterns towards both positive and negative outcomes (e.g., environmentalism vs. anti-environmentalism). However, we know little about conformity in response to sanctions for norm violations. This research explores conformity in punishment for norm violations and how this behavior is enhanced or weakened by empathic concern (N = 1108). The participants acted as third parties to punish unfairness either in a third-party punishment game or in lifelike unfair allocation scenarios. They behaved in a group where other members inflicted either high or low punishment on the unfair proposers. The results of this study show that the participants conformed to both the high-punishment norm and the low-punishment norm, and their conformity persisted after removing the group context (Studies 1A and 1B). Studies 2A and 2B show that evoking empathic concern towards recipients (victims) in unfair situations increased the punishment of the dictator and diminished conformity to the low-punishment norm. Study 3 shows that the enhancement effect of empathic concern on conformity when embedded in the high-punishment norm strengthened over time, whereas the weakening effect of empathic concern on conformity among those representing a low-punishment norm declined over time. These findings extend the understanding of conformity and the role of emotion in this behavior, with the potential for conformity-modulating interventions.

Human prosociality is a valuable but also deeply puzzling trait. While several studies suggest that prosociality is an impulsive behavior, others argue that self-control is necessary to develop prosocial behaviors. Yet, prosociality and self-control in children have rarely been studied jointly. Here, we measured self-control (i.e., delay-of-gratification) and prosociality (i.e., giving in a dictator game) in 250 4- to 6-year-old French schoolchildren. Contrary to previous studies, we found a negative relationship between waiting in the delay-of-gratification task and giving in the dictator game. The effect was especially pronounced when the partner in the dictator game was unknown compared with giving in a dictator game where the partner was a friend. Our results suggest that self-control is not always necessary to act prosocially. Future studies investigating whether and how such pattern develops across the lifespan and across cultures are warranted.

Many situations involving exploration, such as businesses expanding into new products or locations, expose the explorer to the potential for subjective losses. How does the potential to experience losses during the course of a search affect individuals' appetite for exploration? In three incentivized studies, we manipulate search outcomes by presenting participants either with a gain-only environment or a gain-loss environment. The two environments offer objectively identical incentives for exploration: Using a framing manipulation, we decrease gain-loss payoffs and provide participants an initial endowment to offset the difference. Participants decide how to explore a one-dimensional space, receiving payoffs based on their location each period. We predict and find that participants are motivated to avoid losses, which increases exploration when they are incurring losses but decreases exploration when they face the potential for losses. We conclude that exploration is driven by hope of potential gains, constrained by fear of potential losses, and motivated by avoidance of experienced losses.