Needing everything (or just one thing) to go right: Myopic preferences for consolidating or spreading risks.

IF 6.4 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Journal of personality and social psychology Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-25 DOI:10.1037/pspa0000343
Yilu Wang, Stephen M Baum, Clayton R Critcher
{"title":"Needing everything (or just one thing) to go right: Myopic preferences for consolidating or spreading risks.","authors":"Yilu Wang, Stephen M Baum, Clayton R Critcher","doi":"10.1037/pspa0000343","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Succeeding at a task often depends on the success or failure of component events. Such multicomponent risks can take one of two general forms. Disjunctive risks require the success of just one such component; conjunctive risks, all of them. Seven studies converge to show people prefer to consolidate disjunctive risks into fewer components and to spread conjunctive risks across more components, independent of the objective or subjective implications for the probability of overall success. These tendencies were reflected in preferences for how to approach potential investors, decisions about how much to invest in different business opportunities, and gamble valuations. Such preferences were specific to multicomponent risks as compared to single-component risks whose overall prospects for success were yoked to participants' own perceptions of a matched multicomponent risk. Participants confronted multicomponent risks myopically, swayed by whether positive or disappointing news would likely be delivered at a single point in time instead of by the overall prospects for success. Supporting this account, these preferences for consolidating or spreading risks were reduced when the components' outcomes would be revealed at once. Anticipated confidence while proceeding through the risk (even controlling for perceived probabilities of success) explained these preferences. After all, these preferred risk structures actually do allow people to traverse a multicomponent risk with more confidence that the next piece of news they receive will be positive (or not negative), though such myopic perspectives neglect just how many components will offer a chance for success (disjunctive risks) or the potential for failure (conjunctive risks). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":"125 4","pages":"730-751"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of personality and social psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000343","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Succeeding at a task often depends on the success or failure of component events. Such multicomponent risks can take one of two general forms. Disjunctive risks require the success of just one such component; conjunctive risks, all of them. Seven studies converge to show people prefer to consolidate disjunctive risks into fewer components and to spread conjunctive risks across more components, independent of the objective or subjective implications for the probability of overall success. These tendencies were reflected in preferences for how to approach potential investors, decisions about how much to invest in different business opportunities, and gamble valuations. Such preferences were specific to multicomponent risks as compared to single-component risks whose overall prospects for success were yoked to participants' own perceptions of a matched multicomponent risk. Participants confronted multicomponent risks myopically, swayed by whether positive or disappointing news would likely be delivered at a single point in time instead of by the overall prospects for success. Supporting this account, these preferences for consolidating or spreading risks were reduced when the components' outcomes would be revealed at once. Anticipated confidence while proceeding through the risk (even controlling for perceived probabilities of success) explained these preferences. After all, these preferred risk structures actually do allow people to traverse a multicomponent risk with more confidence that the next piece of news they receive will be positive (or not negative), though such myopic perspectives neglect just how many components will offer a chance for success (disjunctive risks) or the potential for failure (conjunctive risks). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

需要一切(或只需要一件事)都做好:巩固或传播风险的近视偏好。
任务的成功与否通常取决于组件事件的成败。这种多成分风险可以采取两种常见形式之一。虚拟风险只需要一个这样的组成部分的成功;连带风险,所有这些。七项研究表明,人们更喜欢将分离风险整合到更少的组成部分中,并将结合风险分散到更多的组成部分,而与整体成功概率的客观或主观影响无关。这些趋势反映在如何接近潜在投资者的偏好、对不同商机投资多少的决定以及赌博估值上。与单一成分风险相比,这种偏好是多成分风险特有的,单一成分风险的成功前景与参与者自己对匹配的多成分风险的看法有关。参与者面对多因素风险时目光短浅,受是否可能在某个时间点发布积极或令人失望的消息的影响,而不是受成功的整体前景的影响。支持这一账户的是,当各组成部分的结果立即公布时,这些对合并或分散风险的偏好就减少了。在经历风险时的预期信心(甚至控制感知的成功概率)解释了这些偏好。毕竟,这些首选的风险结构实际上确实让人们能够更自信地穿越多成分风险,相信他们收到的下一条消息将是积极的(或不是消极的),尽管这种短视的观点忽略了有多少成分会提供成功的机会(分离风险)或失败的可能性(结合风险)。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
3.90%
发文量
250
期刊介绍: Journal of personality and social psychology publishes original papers in all areas of personality and social psychology and emphasizes empirical reports, but may include specialized theoretical, methodological, and review papers.Journal of personality and social psychology is divided into three independently edited sections. Attitudes and Social Cognition addresses all aspects of psychology (e.g., attitudes, cognition, emotion, motivation) that take place in significant micro- and macrolevel social contexts.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信