Journal of Behavioral Decision Making最新文献

{"title":"Binary Binning: Examining the Mapping Between Continuous and Binary Review Scales","authors":"Neel Ocean,&nbsp; Vasundhara,&nbsp;Rucha Paricharak","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70080","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70080","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Products and services are commonly rated on either a 5-point scale or a binary scale. Using a pilot experiment, two between-subjects experiments, and a survey, this paper investigates how individuals evaluate products differently depending on the scale used, how they categorize ratings on a 5-point scale into binary bins, and how they estimate 5-point distributions from binary scales. Individuals perceive products as higher in quality when ratings are presented on a binary scale if reviews have been assigned to positive or negative categories based on whether they are above or below the midpoint of a 5-point scale. Individuals perceive products as being of equivalent quality across scales only when ratings of four and five are taken as positive, and the remainder as negative. However, when individuals are asked to generate a 5-point distribution from binary ratings, they do not account for this skew <i>unless</i> the 5-point scale is explicitly labeled so that the “neutral” point of the scale is defined as four rather than three. These findings extend the literature that aims to understand how people evaluate products given different forms of ratings information.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.70080","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147668271","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}

{"title":"On Sharing Benefits Created by Costly Help","authors":"Tamar Kugler,&nbsp;Judith Avrahami,&nbsp;David V. Budescu,&nbsp;Yaakov Kareev,&nbsp;Taly Shmuell,&nbsp;Vered Tzameret","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70078","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70078","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Cases in which a costly helping act by a benefactor can greatly improve the outcomes of a beneficiary abound. Such help conforms with prevalent social norms and can increase collective welfare. We study how the surplus created through such help is shared by the benefactor and the beneficiary. We hypothesized that aspects of the situation, such as relative wealth, social distance, whether the help increased gains or prevented losses, and perspective may result in variations in this division. In two experiments, we compare participants' judgments (<i>N</i> = 695) and participants' bargaining choices (<i>N</i> = 617 dyads). In both tasks, the proposed compensation for the cost incurred, while the benefits of helping exceeded the cost and was affected similarly by the manipulated factors. We observed pro-social equalizing of outcomes, less indebtedness to family benefactors than to commercial ones, and sensitivity to the fact that help-seeker was suffering a loss. However, whereas the judgments allocated to the beneficiary about 80% of the surplus generated, in (consequential) minimal bargaining, the surplus was split more equally, as expected by economic theory. This gap raises doubts about the validity of using nonconsequential measures.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147668067","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}

{"title":"The Intricate Nature of Evaluability: How Attribute Framing, Magnitude, and Reference Point Moderate Calibration and Bias","authors":"Hamutal Kreiner,&nbsp;Eyal Gamliel","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70079","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70079","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This research examines how evaluability is influenced by the interplay of attribute framing, magnitude information, and reference points. In two experiments, participants evaluated scenarios varying in framing valence (positive vs. negative), magnitude polarity, and the availability of a base-rate reference point. The results indicated that framing valence systematically biased evaluations regardless of reference-point availability and magnitude polarity. However, the availability of a reference point improved calibration, revealing higher sensitivity of evaluations to magnitude information. Experiment 2 extended these findings by manipulating reference-point value. The results demonstrated that evaluations are highly sensitive to the relative value of magnitudes compared with the reference point, yet absolute magnitude made an additional contribution. These findings are consistent with fuzzy-trace theory, insofar as they align with its dual-route framework, and may be interpreted as compatible with the idea that evaluability is associated with dual cognitive routes: gist-based processes may contribute to susceptibility to framing bias, whereas verbatim-based processes may support magnitude sensitivity and improve calibration. Importantly, the present research did not directly test fuzzy-trace theory against alternative accounts; therefore, it cannot determine whether fuzzy-trace theory uniquely explains the observed findings or whether other accounts could explain them. The research highlights the intricate nature of evaluability by demonstrating that providing reference-point information can enhance magnitude sensitivity without mitigating framing bias. Practical implications for information presentation are discussed, and future directions are outlined for promoting theoretical understanding of evaluability mechanisms.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.70079","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147668066","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}

{"title":"Warning: Warnings Can Backfire Even When They Provide New and Important Information","authors":"Ido Erev,&nbsp;Efrat Aharonov Majar,&nbsp;Michael Sobolev,&nbsp;Yefim Roth","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70077","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70077","url":null,"abstract":"<p>We clarify the conditions under which warnings that provide useful information backfire. Our analysis is based on three observations: (1) warnings can increase the attention given to the warned-against behavior, (2) in many settings, counterproductive warned-against behaviors (like texting while driving) are typically rewarding, and (3) decisions from experience reflect insufficient sensitivity to rare outcomes. A simple model that abstracts the implications of these observations predicts that a backfiring effect initially emerges when the warned-against behavior is unlikely to be considered without the warning. In addition, the model predicts an increase in the choice rate of the warned-against behavior, with experience, when the probability of losing from the warned-against behavior is low. Experiment 1 tests and supports these predictions in the context of warnings concerning risky clicks. Experiments 2 and 3 demonstrate the generality of these predictions in more complex settings that involve warnings concerning danger zones and misinformation.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.70077","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147615408","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}

{"title":"Partisan Differences in Risk-Taking in a Simulated Pandemic","authors":"Jan K. Woike,&nbsp;Sebastian Hafenbrädl,&nbsp;Patricia Kanngiesser,&nbsp;Ralph Hertwig","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70066","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70066","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Responses to COVID-19 in the United States were split along partisan political lines throughout the pandemic. People on the political left tended to take the medical threat more seriously and were more likely to adopt preventive health behaviors than those on the political right, resulting in clear differences in state-level policies and health consequences. Here, we examine the origins of these differences, investigating whether they are based on interindividual differences or in party dynamics. Two groups of participants (<span></span><math>\u0000 <semantics>\u0000 <mrow>\u0000 <mi>N</mi>\u0000 <mo>=</mo>\u0000 <mn>819</mn>\u0000 </mrow>\u0000 <annotation>$$ N=819 $$</annotation>\u0000 </semantics></math>), who had voted either for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in 2016, played the Transmission Game. Players made repeated decisions in a simulated pandemic that involved a trade-off between increasing their expected personal payoff and reducing the chance of a total payoff-loss for themselves and others. In four experimental conditions, the study framing (neutral or pandemic) was crossed with the presence (or absence) of a normative intervention aimed at reducing risk-taking. We observed systematic partisan differences in all conditions, with Republicans taking more risk than Democrats, even in neutrally framed conditions—supporting the idea of interindividual differences between voter groups beyond party dynamics. At the same time, both normative interventions and the pandemic framing reduced risk-taking and expected infection rates in both voter groups. Moreover, we examined individual predictors of risk-taking and demonstrated that game behavior, conservatism, and psychological reactance predict intentions to adopt preventive health behaviors outside the laboratory. We discuss implications for the framing of studies conducted during ongoing crises and lessons for future pandemic preparedness.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.70066","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147615257","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}

{"title":"Relationship Valuation Sensitivity for Family and Friends: A Test of Welfare Tradeoff Ratio Variables and General Social Discounting","authors":"Savannah Price,&nbsp;Gary L. Brase","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70076","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70076","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Decisions about how much we help others have been quantified recently as general social discounting functions or as individual-specific welfare tradeoff ratios (WTRs). The WTR model integrates kinship (based on kin-selected altruism), which should be relatively inflexible as a contributor to overall WTR value, whereas more general social discounting functions minimize kinship as a distinct factor. Using monetary forced-choice measures of social discounting, this research compared valuations of close kin versus friends and distant kin versus friends when that individual exhibits extreme disrespect of the participant. Participants (143 undergraduates in Experiment 1; 210 in Experiment 2) significantly devalued distant versus close relationships and post- versus pre-disrespect scenarios. In Experiment 2, there was also a significantly lower valuation of friends relative to kin. The WTR prediction of an interaction between kin/friends and pre-/post-disrespect, however, did not emerge. This indicates instead a more general social discounting process. There are possible adjustments to the present methodology, which further research may explore, or to the WTR model, which might account for the present results.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147567730","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}

{"title":"The Bright Side of Transparent Sludges: When Friction Promotes Value-Incongruent Behavioral Intentions","authors":"Ayse Danyal,&nbsp;Baler Bilgin,&nbsp;Justin Marcus","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70075","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70075","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Targeting behaviors that conflict with deeply held values remains a persistent challenge for behavioral science, particularly as polarization increasingly defines both political and everyday decision contexts. Prior research suggests that nudges (interventions that simplify decision-making) often struggle in value-incongruent domains. The potential of sludges (interventions that introduce friction) remains less well understood, especially when such interventions are implemented transparently and disclosed to decision-makers. Across two experiments spanning multiple behavioral domains, we examine whether decisiveness, a dispositional tendency toward rapid and confident decision-making, moderates the effectiveness of transparent nudges and sludges in value-congruent versus value-incongruent contexts. We find a systematic divergence. Among highly decisive individuals, transparent sludges increase behavioral intentions more than nudges when interventions target value-incongruent behaviors, but not when they target value-congruent behaviors. Among less decisive individuals, nudges and sludges are similarly effective across contexts. These findings indicate that transparent friction can facilitate engagement with value-incongruent options among individuals most inclined to reach closure quickly, without steering choice or obscuring influence. By identifying decisiveness as a moderator of intervention effectiveness in polarized settings, this research contributes to growing evidence of heterogeneity in behavioral interventions and highlights the importance of aligning choice architecture tools with both individual decision styles and value alignment. From a policy perspective, the results suggest that transparent, nondirectional frictions may offer a viable and ethical design option in contested domains where autonomy concerns are salient.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147567839","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}

{"title":"Effects of Opportunity Costs on Delay Discounting for Hypothetical Food and Money","authors":"Andrew Harmon,&nbsp;Luis R. Rodriguez,&nbsp;Kelsie L. Hendrickson,&nbsp;Brianna Prien,&nbsp;Erin B. Rasmussen","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70074","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70074","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Delay discounting refers to a decrease in subjective value of an outcome as its receipt is delayed. In discounting studies, properties of the delay are important, but understudied, methodological details. One aspect of the delay is opportunity costs, which refers to alternative reinforcement that is forgone while waiting for a reward. Research shows that verbal narratives specifying high opportunity costs lead to steeper discounting for money and cigarettes. However, opportunity costs have not been examined with food discounting. The current study examined the extent to which opportunity costs affect discounting for money (Experiment 1) and food (Experiment 2) using within-subjects designs. Participants were presented with narratives specifying differing magnitudes of opportunity costs prior to completing four discounting tasks for two magnitudes of money (Exp 1) or food (Exp 2). Results indicated that as opportunity costs increased, discounting for both money and food also increased. Magnitude effects were also found; the smallest magnitudes of money and food were discounted most steeply. Lastly, systematic responding was lower, but more consistent across opportunity costs for food compared to money, indicating choice stability with money is more sensitive to opportunity costs. These results then replicate and extend opportunity costs to food discounting.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147566083","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}

{"title":"Between Confidence and Clarity: Objective and Subjective Expertise Differentially Predict Use of Alignable and Nonalignable Product Attributes","authors":"Samuel H. Borislow,&nbsp;Daniel M. Bartels","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70073","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70073","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Expertise is multifaceted. This project builds on the difference between subjective expertise (the confidence one holds in understanding a particular topic) and objective expertise (one's actual understanding of that topic), which can vary independently. We examine how subjective and objective expertise differentially relate to making better choices and seeking additional choice-relevant information. We hypothesized that some participants would be poorly calibrated in their ability to assess the value of more difficult-to-evaluate nonalignable attributes (in our setting, categorical attributes that are present or absent, such as torque-vectoring) compared with easier-to-evaluate alignable attributes (e.g., miles per gallon). We measure and manipulate subjective and objective expertise and find that participants with greater objective expertise (either naturally or through provided information) tend to base their choices on the values of nonalignable attributes and that this pattern is generally not predicted by measures of subjective expertise. High subjective expertise, instead, predicts a reduced willingness to seek additional information or take advice, as well as a greater willingness to pay for customized items, independent of objective expertise. These studies point to important differences between these facets of expertise, underscoring the importance of incorporating measures of each when examining the role of expertise in decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.70073","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147562178","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}

{"title":"Interpersonal Effects of Using Selection or Elimination: People Are Less Willing to Interact With Elimination Strategy Users Than With Selection Strategy Users","authors":"Ruobing Fu,&nbsp;Jingyi Lu","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70071","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70071","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Decision makers employ either a selection strategy to choose desirable options or an elimination strategy to remove undesirable options. While previous research has revealed how these two strategies influence decision processes and outcomes, the interpersonal influences remain understudied. This research fills this gap by documenting that people are less willing to interact with decision makers who use an elimination (vs. selection) strategy due to the belief that elimination (vs. selection) strategy users are more critical. However, the interpersonal cost of using an elimination strategy is mitigated when negative decisions are made to identify the worst option, when negative feedback is desired, and when decision makers are forced to use the strategy. Our research contributes to the literature on decision strategy by revealing the social effect of selection and elimination, and to the literature on choice perception by showing that decision strategy shapes the way people view decision makers.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147569871","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}