Stability and robustness of idiosyncratic choice bias.

Lior Lebovich, Lea Kaplan, David Hansel, Yonatan Loewenstein
{"title":"Stability and robustness of idiosyncratic choice bias.","authors":"Lior Lebovich, Lea Kaplan, David Hansel, Yonatan Loewenstein","doi":"10.1038/s44271-025-00263-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A well-known observation in repeated-choice experiments is that a tendency to prefer one response over the others emerges if the feedback consistently favors that response. Choice bias, a tendency to prefer one response over the others, however, is not restricted to biased-feedback settings and is also observed when the feedback is unbiased. In fact, participant-specific choice bias, known as idiosyncratic choice bias (ICB), is common even in symmetrical experimental settings in which feedback is completely absent. Here we ask whether feedback-induced bias and ICB share a common mechanism. Specifically, we ask whether ICBs reflect idiosyncrasies in choice-feedback associations prior to the measurement of the ICB. To address this question, we compared the long-term dynamics of ICBs with feedback-induced biases in two longitudinal experiments involving 319 participants. We show that while feedback effectively induced choice preferences, its effect was transient and diminished within several weeks. By contrast, we show that ICBs remained stable for at least 22 months. These results indicate that different mechanisms underlie the idiosyncratic and feedback-induced biases.</p>","PeriodicalId":501698,"journal":{"name":"Communications Psychology","volume":"3 1","pages":"79"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12084652/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communications Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-025-00263-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A well-known observation in repeated-choice experiments is that a tendency to prefer one response over the others emerges if the feedback consistently favors that response. Choice bias, a tendency to prefer one response over the others, however, is not restricted to biased-feedback settings and is also observed when the feedback is unbiased. In fact, participant-specific choice bias, known as idiosyncratic choice bias (ICB), is common even in symmetrical experimental settings in which feedback is completely absent. Here we ask whether feedback-induced bias and ICB share a common mechanism. Specifically, we ask whether ICBs reflect idiosyncrasies in choice-feedback associations prior to the measurement of the ICB. To address this question, we compared the long-term dynamics of ICBs with feedback-induced biases in two longitudinal experiments involving 319 participants. We show that while feedback effectively induced choice preferences, its effect was transient and diminished within several weeks. By contrast, we show that ICBs remained stable for at least 22 months. These results indicate that different mechanisms underlie the idiosyncratic and feedback-induced biases.

特质选择偏差的稳定性和稳健性。
在重复选择实验中有一个众所周知的观察结果:如果反馈始终支持一种反应,就会出现一种比其他反应更喜欢的倾向。然而,选择偏差,一种倾向于选择一种反应而不是其他反应的倾向,并不局限于有偏见的反馈设置,当反馈是无偏的时也可以观察到。事实上,参与者特定的选择偏差,被称为特质选择偏差(ICB),即使在完全没有反馈的对称实验环境中也很常见。在这里,我们询问反馈诱导偏差和ICB是否具有共同的机制。具体地说,我们在测量ICB之前询问ICB是否反映了选择反馈关联中的特质。为了解决这个问题,我们在两个涉及319名参与者的纵向实验中比较了ICBs与反馈诱导偏差的长期动态。我们表明,虽然反馈有效地诱导了选择偏好,但其效果是短暂的,并在几周内减弱。相比之下,我们发现ICBs至少在22个月内保持稳定。这些结果表明,不同的机制背后的特质和反馈诱导的偏见。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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