影响比例偏差的因素

IF 2.3 Q3 MANAGEMENT EURO Journal on Decision Processes Pub Date : 2018-11-01 DOI:10.1007/s40070-018-0082-7
David Bourdin , Rudolf Vetschera
{"title":"影响比例偏差的因素","authors":"David Bourdin ,&nbsp;Rudolf Vetschera","doi":"10.1007/s40070-018-0082-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The ratio bias refers to the tendency of individuals to judge probabilities expressed as ratios of large numbers as more likely than equivalent or even higher probabilities expressed as a ratio of small numbers. For example, the ratio bias effect occurs when a lottery offering a 9/100 chance of winning is preferred over a lottery that offers a 1/10 chance of winning. Although previous empirical research has found evidence for the ratio bias, the exact conditions under which this effect occurs are still unclear and there is a lack of rigor in distinguishing the ratio bias from other similar effects. In this article, besides providing a comprehensive and integrative literature review, we present the results of an experiment in which we extend previous research on the ratio bias by comparing deviations both in favor of low- and high-number alternatives, as well as allowing for indifference. Results indicate that a systematic deviation in favor of high-number alternatives does exist, but that the ratio bias must be clearly distinguished from a general tendency to indicate indifference. Concerning characteristics of the problem and the decision maker, we find significant influences of probability levels involved (the ratio bias occurs more frequently for low probabilities), and of gender (the bias occurs more often among female subjects).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":44104,"journal":{"name":"EURO Journal on Decision Processes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s40070-018-0082-7","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Factors influencing the ratio bias\",\"authors\":\"David Bourdin ,&nbsp;Rudolf Vetschera\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40070-018-0082-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The ratio bias refers to the tendency of individuals to judge probabilities expressed as ratios of large numbers as more likely than equivalent or even higher probabilities expressed as a ratio of small numbers. For example, the ratio bias effect occurs when a lottery offering a 9/100 chance of winning is preferred over a lottery that offers a 1/10 chance of winning. Although previous empirical research has found evidence for the ratio bias, the exact conditions under which this effect occurs are still unclear and there is a lack of rigor in distinguishing the ratio bias from other similar effects. In this article, besides providing a comprehensive and integrative literature review, we present the results of an experiment in which we extend previous research on the ratio bias by comparing deviations both in favor of low- and high-number alternatives, as well as allowing for indifference. Results indicate that a systematic deviation in favor of high-number alternatives does exist, but that the ratio bias must be clearly distinguished from a general tendency to indicate indifference. Concerning characteristics of the problem and the decision maker, we find significant influences of probability levels involved (the ratio bias occurs more frequently for low probabilities), and of gender (the bias occurs more often among female subjects).</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44104,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EURO Journal on Decision Processes\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s40070-018-0082-7\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EURO Journal on Decision Processes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2193943821000935\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EURO Journal on Decision Processes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2193943821000935","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

比率偏差指的是个体倾向于判断以大数之比表示的概率比以小数之比表示的同等甚至更高的概率更有可能。例如,当提供9/100中奖机会的彩票比提供1/10中奖机会的彩票更受欢迎时,就会出现比率偏差效应。虽然以往的实证研究已经发现了比例偏差的证据,但这种效应发生的确切条件仍然不清楚,并且在区分比例偏差与其他类似效应方面缺乏严谨性。在这篇文章中,除了提供一个全面和综合的文献综述,我们提出了一个实验的结果,我们通过比较偏向于低数量和高数量的选择的偏差,以及允许冷漠来扩展先前对比例偏差的研究。结果表明,支持高数量替代方案的系统性偏差确实存在,但必须清楚地将比例偏差与表明冷漠的一般趋势区分开来。关于问题和决策者的特征,我们发现所涉及的概率水平(比例偏差在低概率情况下更常见)和性别(偏差在女性受试者中更常见)的显著影响。
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
Factors influencing the ratio bias

The ratio bias refers to the tendency of individuals to judge probabilities expressed as ratios of large numbers as more likely than equivalent or even higher probabilities expressed as a ratio of small numbers. For example, the ratio bias effect occurs when a lottery offering a 9/100 chance of winning is preferred over a lottery that offers a 1/10 chance of winning. Although previous empirical research has found evidence for the ratio bias, the exact conditions under which this effect occurs are still unclear and there is a lack of rigor in distinguishing the ratio bias from other similar effects. In this article, besides providing a comprehensive and integrative literature review, we present the results of an experiment in which we extend previous research on the ratio bias by comparing deviations both in favor of low- and high-number alternatives, as well as allowing for indifference. Results indicate that a systematic deviation in favor of high-number alternatives does exist, but that the ratio bias must be clearly distinguished from a general tendency to indicate indifference. Concerning characteristics of the problem and the decision maker, we find significant influences of probability levels involved (the ratio bias occurs more frequently for low probabilities), and of gender (the bias occurs more often among female subjects).

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
2.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
Editorial: Feature Issue on Fair and Explainable Decision Support Systems Editorial: Feature issue on fair and explainable decision support systems Corrigendum to “Multi-objective optimization in real-time operation of rainwater harvesting systems” [EURO Journal on Decision Processes Volume 11 (2023) 100039] Multiobjective combinatorial optimization with interactive evolutionary algorithms: The case of facility location problems Performance assessment of waste sorting: Component-based approach to incorporate quality into data envelopment analysis
×
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