Boundary conditions for the positive skew bias

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
Colleen C. Frank, Sade J. Abiodun, Kendra L. Seaman
{"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":null,"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":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.2372","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

正偏斜偏置的边界条件
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。
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
4.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral Decision Making is a multidisciplinary journal with a broad base of content and style. It publishes original empirical reports, critical review papers, theoretical analyses and methodological contributions. The Journal also features book, software and decision aiding technique reviews, abstracts of important articles published elsewhere and teaching suggestions. The objective of the Journal is to present and stimulate behavioral research on decision making and to provide a forum for the evaluation of complementary, contrasting and conflicting perspectives. These perspectives include psychology, management science, sociology, political science and economics. Studies of behavioral decision making in naturalistic and applied settings are encouraged.
×
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