Journal of Behavioral Decision Making最新文献

From Preparation to Performance: Conscientiousness Predicts Negotiation Planning and Value Claiming

IF 1.8 3区心理学

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2025-03-25 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.70015

Daisung Jang, William P. Bottom, Hillary Anger Elfenbein

{"title":"From Preparation to Performance: Conscientiousness Predicts Negotiation Planning and Value Claiming","authors":"Daisung Jang, William P. Bottom, Hillary Anger Elfenbein","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70015","url":null,"abstract":"Individual difference researchers observe that conscientiousness predicts job but not negotiation performance. This may reflect a genuine absence of this trait's impact on negotiation. But this could also be due to methodological choices in studies to date. Most studies relied on small sample sizes and highly structured negotiation problems that limit opportunities for preparation. This paper takes a novel approach to examining conscientiousness in negotiation by (1) deploying a complex simulation that demands considerable planning effort, (2) examining variation in planning behavior, and (3) using dyadic data analysis methods with an adequately powered sample. In the two samples comprising Studies 1A and 1B (combined N = 566), higher conscientiousness predicted more value claimed, and counterpart conscientiousness predicted less value claimed in settlements. Follow-up studies examined planning behavior. Study 2 (N = 301) demonstrated that conscientious negotiators spent more time planning and placed greater import on information relevant to the negotiation. Conscientiousness correlated positively with peer ratings of distributive efficiency. Study 3 (N = 153) not only replicated the positive relationship between conscientiousness and greater time spent planning but also identified a U-shaped relationship between the trait and effortful planning behaviors. The results suggest that conscientiousness represents a previously underappreciated contributor to effective negotiation. By loosening the constraints on bargaining present in most negotiation studies, we observed a pattern consistent with many prior studies of job performance—conscientiousness predicts individual outcomes and planning behavior. These studies highlight a need to expand the empirical and theoretical exploration of negotiation processes beyond the bargaining phase.","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"38 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.70015","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143698764","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

When Certainty Backfires: The Effects of Unwarranted Precision on Consumer Loyalty

IF 1.8 3区心理学

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2025-03-18 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.70013

Eleonore Batteux, Zarema Khon, Avri Bilovich, Samuel G. B. Johnson, David Tuckett

{"title":"When Certainty Backfires: The Effects of Unwarranted Precision on Consumer Loyalty","authors":"Eleonore Batteux, Zarema Khon, Avri Bilovich, Samuel G. B. Johnson, David Tuckett","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70013","url":null,"abstract":"Consumers are drawn to the promise of certainty that precise forecasts seem to provide, even though they are often misleading. Yet we know less about how consumers respond when precise forecasts prove inaccurate. In this paper, we investigate how inaccurate precise compared to range forecasts affect consumer judgments and decisions over time in an investment context. Specifically, we assess how they affect consumers' loyalty towards the forecaster as well as their willingness to make the same kind of investment again. Consumers were less trusting of and loyal to investment management firms that communicated inaccurate precise forecasts compared to firms that communicated inaccurate range forecasts, which acknowledged uncertainty. But we did not find evidence that consumers changed their minds as to the sector into which they wanted to invest. In other words, they seem to punish the firm for inaccurate forecasts, but this did not shift their preference for their type of investment. Interestingly, these effects largely persisted when consumers encountered similar inaccurate forecasts 1 week later, suggesting they do not learn to be suspicious of precise forecasts in general from exposure to inaccurate forecasts. Overall, our findings show that it is not in firms' interest to communicate overly precise forecasts under uncertainty as they risk punishment by consumers.","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"38 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2025-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.70013","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143646138","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Correction to “Determinants of Economic Risk Preferences Across Adolescence”

IF 1.8 3区心理学

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2025-02-27 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.70014

引用次数: 0

The “Why Me?” Model: Explaining Moral Judgments in the Eyes of Single Versus Several Victims

IF 1.8 3区心理学

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2025-02-26 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.70012

Shahar Ayal, Daffie Konis, Kelly Saporta

{"title":"The “Why Me?” Model: Explaining Moral Judgments in the Eyes of Single Versus Several Victims","authors":"Shahar Ayal, Daffie Konis, Kelly Saporta","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70012","url":null,"abstract":"This series of five studies examines a bias in moral judgment where harm inflicted on a single individual is perceived as more morally wrong than similar harm experienced by multiple individuals. To explain this bias, we introduce the “Why Me?” Model (WMM), which suggests that people tend to interpret harm directed at a single individual as personally targeted. This perception intensifies the judgment that the harm is more severe and morally egregious. Studies 1 and 2 explored how the victim's perception of personal targeting mediates this bias, whereas Studies 3–5 investigated specific boundary conditions of the WMM. Consistent with our predictions, the bias disappeared when participants were given explicit reasons for the harm (Study 3) or when they could directly compare scenarios involving one versus multiple victims (Study 4). Finally, Study 5 demonstrated that this bias arises from a tendency to perceive an act as more harmful when it is personally targeted at an individual, compared to when it affects several individuals, even when there is no difference in the perceived unfairness or general intentionality of these two conditions.","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"38 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.70012","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143497303","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Acting Wastefully but Feeling Satisfied: Understanding Waste Aversion

IF 1.8 3区心理学

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2025-02-13 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.70011

Ro'i Zultan, Ori Weisel, Yaniv Shani

{"title":"Acting Wastefully but Feeling Satisfied: Understanding Waste Aversion","authors":"Ro'i Zultan, Ori Weisel, Yaniv Shani","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70011","url":null,"abstract":"Paying more than one could have paid to obtain the same outcome is wasteful. In four experiments, we show that waste aversion can lead people to prefer a more wasteful outcome over a more frugal outcome, as long as it eliminates the feeling of wastefulness. In Study 1, we measured participants' satisfaction with lottery outcomes to find that they are less satisfied with their obtained outcome relative to an inferior, dominated, outcome—if they are aware of a counter-factual in which they could have paid less to achieve the dominant outcome. Study 2 revealed that responsibility for the decision that led to the outcome does not intensify the effect, suggesting that wastefulness is a more prominent explanation for the effect than regret. Study 3 extended the results from outcome satisfaction to decisions. Participants altered their choice of whether to continue or terminate searching for an apartment based on their awareness of a counterfactual that renders the process leading to the outcome as wasteful or not. Waste aversion leads participants to extend their search beyond what they would do based purely on their preferences and expectations. Study 4 replicated these findings with payoff-relevant decisions. Taken together, these four studies establish that waste aversion leads to higher satisfaction with dominated outcomes in real-world experiences. The effect does not rely on decision regret, and may lead to suboptimal decisions.","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"38 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.70011","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143404614","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Framing Biases in Plea Bargaining Decisions in Those With and Without Criminal Involvement: Tests of Theoretical Assumptions

IF 1.8 3区心理学

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2025-02-02 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.70008

Valerie F. Reyna, Krystia Reed, Alisha Meschkow, Vincent Calderon, Rebecca K. Helm

{"title":"Framing Biases in Plea Bargaining Decisions in Those With and Without Criminal Involvement: Tests of Theoretical Assumptions","authors":"Valerie F. Reyna, Krystia Reed, Alisha Meschkow, Vincent Calderon, Rebecca K. Helm","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70008","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 About 95% of criminal convictions in the United States are obtained through plea decisions, a growing global practice. Courts justify these convictions based on defendant choice—defendants, as rational agents, can freely choose to plead guilty or go to trial. However, a fundamental axiom of rational choice—descriptive invariance—has never been effectively tested for plea decisions. To test this axiom, we manipulated gain–loss framing of plea options. The shadow-of-trial model, the leading theory of plea decision-making, is predicated on expected utility theory which is in turn predicated on the invariance axiom; if the axiom is falsified, the entire structure collapses. Thus, framing effects are important as a test of fundamental assumptions undergirding practice and as an empirical phenomenon revealing effects of context. We tested framing effects in students and community members including those with criminal involvement for whom plea bargaining has personal relevance. Varying subtle changes in wording of outcomes, we produced pronounced differences in choices to accept a plea rather than proceed to trial. These framing effects were robust to age, sex, educational attainment, risk propensity (DOSPERT and sensation seeking), and loss aversion. Perceived fairness of the legal system increased acceptance and risk propensity decreased it (each about 32%). However, controlling for those effects, loss (compared to gain) framing increased the odds of going to trial by 664%. Criminal involvement did not account for additional variance. These results are consistent with prospect theory and fuzzy-trace theory, but they challenge the legal theory of bargaining in “the shadow of trial.”\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"38 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2025-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143110728","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Ratio Bias Across Cultures and Disciplines: How Academic Background Shapes Statistical Decision-Making

IF 1.8 3区心理学

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2025-01-28 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.70010

Jochen Baumeister, Bernhard Streicher, Eva Lermer

引用次数: 0

Generous Returners, Vanishing Refunds: How Consumers Spend Monetary Refunds of Returns

IF 1.8 3区心理学

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2025-01-28 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.70009

Ata Jami

{"title":"Generous Returners, Vanishing Refunds: How Consumers Spend Monetary Refunds of Returns","authors":"Ata Jami","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70009","url":null,"abstract":"For every $100 spent on retail industry, consumers on average return $14.50 value of products to retailers, and they receive the amount they originally paid as a refund. The refund money is fungible, and it can be freely spent on other items or be saved. This research examines consumers' propensity to spend return refunds and the types of products they purchase with return refunds. Across 10 studies (N = 2710), I show that people are more likely to make a purchase and to purchase hedonic products when they are spending return refunds versus money typically used for purchases. Examining the psychological mechanism underlying this effect, I show that consumers are more likely to spend return refunds because they perceive a lower psychological loss and experience less pain of paying when spending refund money than when spending other regularly available monetary sources. Hence, receiving return refunds has a stronger effect on the spending behavior of people who chronically experience an intense pain of paying (i.e., “tightwads”) than those who experience less pain (i.e., “spendthrifts”). Moreover, this research shows that neither payment depreciation nor the perception of a return refund as a windfall fully explain how people choose to spend it. In sum, individuals have a different psychological experience when they spend return refunds versus other conventional monetary sources.","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.70009","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143120018","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Correction to The assessment of affective decision-making: Exploring alternative scoring methods for the Balloon Analog Risk Task and Columbia Card Task

IF 1.8 3区心理学

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2025-01-17 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.70005

引用次数: 0

Determinants of Economic Risk Preferences Across Adolescence

IF 1.8 3区心理学

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2025-01-15 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.70007

Yubing Zhang, Colin F. Camerer, Sarah M. Tashjian

{"title":"Determinants of Economic Risk Preferences Across Adolescence","authors":"Yubing Zhang, Colin F. Camerer, Sarah M. Tashjian","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70007","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 This study examined economic risk preferences using a multidimensional approach in adolescents and young adults (N = 444, ages 13–27). Despite the two major theoretical approaches in adolescent economic risk-taking—socioemotional theories and fuzzy-trace theory—comparatively little is known about the role of incidental affective factors in economic risk-taking. We tested six demographic and psychological determinants (age, gender, positive/negative affect, state anxiety, and indecision) on two economic risk decision tasks (loss aversion and skewness). Adolescents reported higher positive affect and lower negative affect than adults, but anxiety and indecision were age-invariant. Women showed lower positive affect and higher negative affect, state anxiety, and indecision compared to men. We found women to be more loss-averse; all other factors were not related to loss aversion. Adolescents were equally likely to accept symmetric and skewed gambles, whereas adults had more nuanced preferences. Adolescents also demonstrated a reduced bias toward negatively skewed risks compared to young adults, but both groups showed similar preferences for positively skewed and symmetric risks. These results support fuzzy-trace theory's prediction of age-related shifts from verbatim to gist representations: More verbatim processing during adolescence facilitated risk-taking in negatively skewed risks, diverging from prospect theory. Positive affect shifted risk preference for adolescents and young adults in divergent directions—adolescents favored symmetrical risks more, while adults favored negatively skewed risks more. These patterns illustrate that adolescents and young adults in positive moods demonstrate risk preferences that are rare for their developmental stage, with potentially detrimental consequences depending on the choice at hand.\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143115274","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0