Journal of Behavioral Decision Making最新文献

Do We Use Relatively Bad (Algorithmic) Advice? The Effects of Performance Feedback and Advice Representation on Advice Usage 我们会使用相对糟糕的（算法）建议吗？性能反馈和建议表示对建议使用的影响

IF 1.8 3区心理学

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2024-11-24 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.70001

Stefan Daschner, Robert Obermaier

{"title":"Do We Use Relatively Bad (Algorithmic) Advice? The Effects of Performance Feedback and Advice Representation on Advice Usage","authors":"Stefan Daschner, Robert Obermaier","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70001","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Algorithms are capable of advising human decision-makers in an increasing number of management accounting tasks such as business forecasts. Due to expected potential of these (intelligent) algorithms, there are growing research efforts to explore ways how to boost algorithmic advice usage in forecasting tasks. However, algorithmic advice can also be erroneous. Yet, the risk of using relatively bad advice is largely ignored in this research stream. Therefore, we conduct two online experiments to examine this risk of using relatively bad advice in a forecasting task. In Experiment 1, we examine the influence of performance feedback (revealing previous relative advice quality) and source of advice on advice usage in business forecasts. The results indicate that the provision of performance feedback increases subsequent advice usage but also the usage of subsequent relatively bad advice. In Experiment 2, we investigate whether advice representation, that is, displaying forecast intervals instead of a point estimate, helps to calibrate advice usage towards relative advice quality. The results suggest that advice representation might be a potential countermeasure to the usage of relatively bad advice. However, the effect of this antidote weakens when forecast intervals become less informative.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"37 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.70001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142708006","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

Evaluation of Extended Decision Outcomes 对扩展决策结果的评估

IF 1.8 3区心理学

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2024-10-21 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.70000

Tommy Gärling

引用次数: 0

Diffusion of Responsibility for Actions With Advice 通过建议分散行动责任

IF 1.8 3区心理学

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2024-10-16 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.2415

Dylan A. Cooper

{"title":"Diffusion of Responsibility for Actions With Advice","authors":"Dylan A. Cooper","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2415","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2415","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Diffusion of responsibility is typically defined as the effect by which people feel less responsible for outcomes of their actions when they act as a member of a group than when they act individually. The research reported here extends the concept of diffusion of responsibility to contexts in which the actor has received advice. Responsibility when using advice and when acting contrary to advice are compared to each other, as well as to responsibility when acting alone or as part of a group. To provide a more complete picture, this research consolidates disparate concepts from previous work on diffusion of responsibility, including felt, judged, and anticipated responsibility assessments; distributive and case-based models of responsibility; and positive and negative outcomes. Across three experiments, using advice conveyed less responsibility than either acting alone or acting contrary to advice, with greater use of advice further reducing responsibility. The magnitude of diffusion was influenced by the task outcome valence in ways consistent with self-serving bias when acting alone and other-serving bias when using advice. Diffusion was greater with distributive than case-based responsibility models. The results were generally consistent across felt, judged, and anticipated responsibility, as well as with choice and judgment tasks. Implications and future research possibilities are discussed.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"37 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142447602","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

Dynamics of Reliance on Algorithmic Advice 依赖算法建议的动态变化

IF 1.8 3区心理学

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2024-10-08 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.2414

Andrej Gill, Robert M. Gillenkirch, Julia Ortner, Louis Velthuis

{"title":"Dynamics of Reliance on Algorithmic Advice","authors":"Andrej Gill, Robert M. Gillenkirch, Julia Ortner, Louis Velthuis","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2414","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2414","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study examines the dynamics of human reliance on algorithmic advice in a situation with strategic interaction. Participants played the strategic game of Rock–Paper–Scissors (RPS) under various conditions, receiving algorithmic decision support while facing human or algorithmic opponents. Results indicate that participants often underutilize algorithmic recommendations, particularly after early errors, but increasingly rely on the algorithm following successful early predictions. This behavior demonstrates a sensitivity to decision outcomes, with asymmetry: rejecting advice consistently reinforces rejecting advice again while accepting advice leads to varied reactions based on outcomes. We also investigate how personal characteristics, such as algorithm familiarity and domain experience, influence reliance on algorithmic advice. Both factors positively correlate with increased reliance, and algorithm familiarity significantly moderates the relationship between outcome feedback and reliance. Facing an algorithmic opponent increases advice rejection frequencies, and the determinants of trust and interaction dynamics differ from those with human opponents. Our findings enhance the understanding of algorithm aversion and reliance on AI, suggesting that increasing familiarity with algorithms can improve their integration into decision-making processes.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"37 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.2414","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142404421","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

PDOSPERT: A New Scale to Predict Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Behaviors in Times of a Pandemic PDOSPERT：预测大流行时期特定领域冒险行为的新量表

IF 1.8 3区心理学

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2024-10-02 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.2413

Benno Guenther, Matteo M. Galizzi, Jet G. Sanders

{"title":"PDOSPERT: A New Scale to Predict Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Behaviors in Times of a Pandemic","authors":"Benno Guenther, Matteo M. Galizzi, Jet G. Sanders","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2413","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2413","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Understanding risk tolerance is crucial for predicting and changing behavior across various domains, including health and safety, finance, and ethics. This remains true during a crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, and leads to a key question: Do current risk measures reliably predict risk-taking in the drastically different context of a pandemic? The Domain Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale, one of the most widely used risk-taking measures, assesses self-reported risk-taking in response to 30 risky situations across five domains. With the hypothetical risks of the DOSPERT being based on prepandemic circumstances, we estimate that three out of four of its risk-taking situations were not possible due to preventive measures or did not reflect risk-taking in times of COVID-19. In addition, COVID-19 brought forth new behaviors deemed risky. With an aim to better predict risk-taking in times of a pandemic, we introduce the Pandemic DOSPERT (PDOSPERT). We summarize three preregistered online studies with 1254 UK participants to validate the scale against the original DOSPERT and three other common risk-taking measures. We also test its ability to predict pandemic risk-related behaviors at three points in time over 2 years. Overall, we find that the PDOSPERT scale significantly improves predictions for pandemic-related risk behavior as compared to the original DOSPERT. In particular, the health/safety subscale is significantly and strongly associated with pandemic-related risk behavior. We not only validate a pandemic-specific risk task but also introduce a template for developing context- and domain-sensitive measures for risk-taking in the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"37 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.2413","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142404229","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

Variation in Valence Intensity Within Frames: Testing Predictions of Prospect Theory and Fuzzy-Trace Theory 帧内价值强度的变化：检验前景理论和模糊跟踪理论的预测结果

IF 1.8 3区心理学

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2024-09-30 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.2412

Todd McElroy

{"title":"Variation in Valence Intensity Within Frames: Testing Predictions of Prospect Theory and Fuzzy-Trace Theory","authors":"Todd McElroy","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2412","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2412","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Risk and decision-making are central to human behavior and have been extensively studied across many disciplines. To better understand the factors that influence an individual's risk-related choices, this paper investigates the influence of frame valence intensity. It does so by comparing predictions from two prominent theories of decision-making: Prospect theory (PT) and fuzzy-trace theory (FTT). PT relies on the numerical transformation of subjective value information suggesting that the intensity of the frame should not affect the decision outcome. In contrast, FTT predicts that the level of frame valence should correspond to the intensity of the extracted memory trace and have predictable effects on risky choice. The results demonstrate that risky choice varies across different levels of the frame's valence. For positive frames, increasing valence intensity is associated with decreased risk preference. For negative frames, the relationship is more complex and context-dependent. These findings extend our understanding of framing effects, suggesting that both the direction and intensity of frame valence influence risk preferences. While broadly aligning with FTT predictions regarding gist extraction, our results also indicate that PT could be extended to account for valence intensity effects, potentially bridging these theoretical perspectives.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"37 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142404773","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

Correction to The Effect of a Default Nudge on Experienced and Expected Autonomy: A Field Study on Food Donation 更正《默认暗示对经验自主和预期自主的影响》：食物捐赠实地研究

IF 1.8 3区心理学

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2024-09-19 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.2411

引用次数: 0

Equivalence Framing and the Construction of Advocacy Messages 等效框架与宣传信息的构建

IF 1.8 3区心理学

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2024-09-11 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.2409

Jiawei Liu, Douglas M. McLeod, Linqi Lu

{"title":"Equivalence Framing and the Construction of Advocacy Messages","authors":"Jiawei Liu, Douglas M. McLeod, Linqi Lu","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2409","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2409","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Alternative messages that present logically equivalent information, often referred to as equivalence frames, have been shown to influence readers' opinions on public issues. While equivalence framing has been studied in the context of issue advocacy, exhibiting pervasive effects across domains of decision-making, little attention has been paid to whether the general public is able to choose these equivalence frames based on the goal of persuasion. Given that framing effects have important implications on democratic decision-making, this paper reports on experiments that manipulate the strategic goal of policy advocacy (i.e., supporting alternative policy proposals) and ask respondents to select between equivalence frames to enhance the persuasive power of the advocacy toward the specified goal. Findings across three issue topics suggest that for the general adult population, only a small proportion of people were able to select equivalence frames based on the goal of persuasion with most people failing to do so. Also, a follow-up study with a university student sample showed that familiarity with one equivalence frame over the other was a more consistent predictor of equivalence frame use than the goal of advocacy in communicating policy issues.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"37 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142169874","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

Predicting Emotional and Behavioral Reactions to Collective Wrongdoing: Effects of Imagined Versus Experienced Collective Guilt on Moral Behavior 预测对集体不法行为的情绪和行为反应：想象中的集体内疚与经历过的集体内疚对道德行为的影响

IF 1.8 3区心理学

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2024-09-10 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.2410

Fabian Bernhard, Udo Rudolph

{"title":"Predicting Emotional and Behavioral Reactions to Collective Wrongdoing: Effects of Imagined Versus Experienced Collective Guilt on Moral Behavior","authors":"Fabian Bernhard, Udo Rudolph","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2410","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2410","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Past research has shown that people are inconsistent when making predictions about emotions and moral behaviors following their own wrongdoing. However, it is less clear how people react when they did not cause the wrongdoing themselves but the group or collective they associate with. The present paper investigates people's reactions to collective wrongdoing and the question (1) whether the prediction of the experience of group-based guilt is related to actual moral behaviors and (2) whether this prediction is reliable. In three studies, we analyze collective guilt and subsequent behavioral reactions. Study 1 involved real academic situations, varying the kind of unfair treatment of others. A priori, participants overestimated their own subsequent experiences of collective guilt as well as their moral behavior. With respect to actual responses, experienced guilt was the strongest predictor of behavioral reactions, while imagined guilt, in-group identification and satisfaction did not significantly predict responses. Moreover, participants also reacted more to the direct harm caused by their group to others than to unjustified privileges granted to others. Study 2 fully replicated these results and showed relative stability in the predictions of collective guilt. Study 3 compared the responses by participants of the previous two studies with their responses 5 years later, indicating high stability of the observed effects over time. Also, we observed that making repeated predictions after experiencing the guilt-eliciting situation did not improve the accuracy of our participants' predictions. We discuss the implications of these findings for self-predictions, behavioral and affective forecasting of collective emotions, and for common assessment methods of guilt by hypothetical vignettes.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"37 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.2410","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142169860","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

The Relative Importance of the Contrast and Assimilation Effects in Decisions Under Risk 风险决策中对比效应和同化效应的相对重要性

IF 1.8 3区心理学

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2024-08-26 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.2408

Eden Heilprin, Ido Erev

{"title":"The Relative Importance of the Contrast and Assimilation Effects in Decisions Under Risk","authors":"Eden Heilprin, Ido Erev","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2408","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2408","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Past research on decisions under risk has documented two contradictory context effects: the contrast effect, where risk preferences in “target” tasks diverge from those in previous “surrounding” tasks, and the assimilation effect that implies the opposite bias. We present four web experiments (three preregistered) that clarify the conditions determining the relative prominence of these opposing effects. Our experiments focus on choice patterns in “target” tasks where participants choose between the status quo and a risky mixed gamble with an expected value of zero. Study 1 examines the impact of surroundings that differ from the target task with respect to the expected benefit from risk-taking. The findings reveal a strong contrast effect: <i>Decreasing</i> the attractiveness of risk-taking in the surrounding tasks <i>increased</i> the risk-taking rate in the target tasks from 53.2% to 79.7%. Study 2 investigates the impact of surroundings that differ in the payoff domain. The findings indicate a strong assimilation effect: <i>Decreasing</i> the attractiveness of risk-taking in the surrounding tasks <i>decreased</i> the risk-taking rate in the target tasks from 74.7% to 36.5%. Additionally, the results revealed unpredicted and robust reversed loss aversion patterns which Studies 3 and 4 further clarify. Our findings (1) suggest that the isolated within-task computations assumed by leading descriptive models overlook substantial contextual considerations, (2) clarify the factors determining the impact of the contrast and assimilation effects in decisions under risk, and (3) provide a theoretical framework for making useful predictions in various scenarios.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"37 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.2408","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142077998","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