计数会改变计数的内容吗?量化固定化会使决策出现偏差。

IF 9.4 1区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America Pub Date : 2024-11-12 Epub Date: 2024-10-28 DOI:10.1073/pnas.2400215121
Linda W Chang, Erika L Kirgios, Sendhil Mullainathan, Katherine L Milkman
{"title":"计数会改变计数的内容吗?量化固定化会使决策出现偏差。","authors":"Linda W Chang, Erika L Kirgios, Sendhil Mullainathan, Katherine L Milkman","doi":"10.1073/pnas.2400215121","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>People often rely on numeric metrics to make decisions and form judgments. Numbers can be difficult to process, leading to their underutilization, but they are also uniquely suited to making comparisons. Do people decide differently when some dimensions of a choice are quantified and others are not? We explore this question across 21 preregistered experiments (8 in the main text, N = 9,303; 13 in supplement, N = 13,936) involving managerial, policy, and consumer decisions. Participants face choices that involve tradeoffs (e.g., choosing between employees, one of whom has a higher likelihood of advancement but lower likelihood of retention), and we randomize which dimension of each tradeoff is presented numerically and which is presented qualitatively (using verbal estimates, discrete visualizations, or continuous visualizations). We show that people systematically shift their preferences toward options that dominate on tradeoff dimensions conveyed numerically-a pattern we dub \"quantification fixation.\" Further, we show that quantification fixation has financial consequences-it emerges in incentive-compatible hiring tasks and in charitable donation decisions. We identify one key mechanism that underlies quantification fixation and moderates its strength: When making comparative judgments, which are essential to tradeoff decisions, numeric information is more fluent than non-numeric information. Our findings suggest that when we count, we change what counts.</p>","PeriodicalId":20548,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does counting change what counts? Quantification fixation biases decision-making.\",\"authors\":\"Linda W Chang, Erika L Kirgios, Sendhil Mullainathan, Katherine L Milkman\",\"doi\":\"10.1073/pnas.2400215121\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>People often rely on numeric metrics to make decisions and form judgments. Numbers can be difficult to process, leading to their underutilization, but they are also uniquely suited to making comparisons. Do people decide differently when some dimensions of a choice are quantified and others are not? We explore this question across 21 preregistered experiments (8 in the main text, N = 9,303; 13 in supplement, N = 13,936) involving managerial, policy, and consumer decisions. Participants face choices that involve tradeoffs (e.g., choosing between employees, one of whom has a higher likelihood of advancement but lower likelihood of retention), and we randomize which dimension of each tradeoff is presented numerically and which is presented qualitatively (using verbal estimates, discrete visualizations, or continuous visualizations). We show that people systematically shift their preferences toward options that dominate on tradeoff dimensions conveyed numerically-a pattern we dub \\\"quantification fixation.\\\" Further, we show that quantification fixation has financial consequences-it emerges in incentive-compatible hiring tasks and in charitable donation decisions. We identify one key mechanism that underlies quantification fixation and moderates its strength: When making comparative judgments, which are essential to tradeoff decisions, numeric information is more fluent than non-numeric information. Our findings suggest that when we count, we change what counts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20548,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2400215121\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2400215121","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人们通常依赖数字指标来做出决策和形成判断。数字可能难以处理,导致其利用率不高,但数字也是进行比较的独特工具。当选择的某些维度被量化,而另一些维度没有被量化时,人们会做出不同的决定吗?我们通过 21 个预先登记的实验(正文中 8 个,N = 9303;补充中 13 个,N = 13936)探讨了这个问题,这些实验涉及管理、政策和消费者决策。参与者面临的选择涉及权衡(例如,在员工之间做出选择,其中一名员工晋升的可能性较高,但留用的可能性较低),我们会随机调整每个权衡的哪个维度以数字形式呈现,哪个维度以定性形式呈现(使用口头估计、离散可视化或连续可视化)。我们的研究表明,人们的偏好会系统性地转向在以数字形式呈现的权衡维度上占优势的选项--我们将这种模式称为 "量化固定"。此外,我们还证明了量化固着会带来经济后果--它出现在激励相容的招聘任务和慈善捐赠决策中。我们发现了一个关键机制,它是量化固着的基础,并能调节量化固着的强度:在做出对权衡决策至关重要的比较判断时,数字信息比非数字信息更流畅。我们的研究结果表明,当我们计数时,我们会改变计数的内容。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Does counting change what counts? Quantification fixation biases decision-making.

People often rely on numeric metrics to make decisions and form judgments. Numbers can be difficult to process, leading to their underutilization, but they are also uniquely suited to making comparisons. Do people decide differently when some dimensions of a choice are quantified and others are not? We explore this question across 21 preregistered experiments (8 in the main text, N = 9,303; 13 in supplement, N = 13,936) involving managerial, policy, and consumer decisions. Participants face choices that involve tradeoffs (e.g., choosing between employees, one of whom has a higher likelihood of advancement but lower likelihood of retention), and we randomize which dimension of each tradeoff is presented numerically and which is presented qualitatively (using verbal estimates, discrete visualizations, or continuous visualizations). We show that people systematically shift their preferences toward options that dominate on tradeoff dimensions conveyed numerically-a pattern we dub "quantification fixation." Further, we show that quantification fixation has financial consequences-it emerges in incentive-compatible hiring tasks and in charitable donation decisions. We identify one key mechanism that underlies quantification fixation and moderates its strength: When making comparative judgments, which are essential to tradeoff decisions, numeric information is more fluent than non-numeric information. Our findings suggest that when we count, we change what counts.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
19.00
自引率
0.90%
发文量
3575
审稿时长
2.5 months
期刊介绍: The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a peer-reviewed journal of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), serves as an authoritative source for high-impact, original research across the biological, physical, and social sciences. With a global scope, the journal welcomes submissions from researchers worldwide, making it an inclusive platform for advancing scientific knowledge.
期刊最新文献
Correlation of sub-centennial-scale pulses of initial Central Atlantic Magmatic Province lavas and the end-Triassic extinctions. Does counting change what counts? Quantification fixation biases decision-making. The effects of Mid-Holocene foragers on the European oyster in Denmark. Higher oxygen content and transport characterize high-altitude ethnic Tibetan women with the highest lifetime reproductive success. Persistently active El Niño-Southern Oscillation since the Mesozoic.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1