Journal of Behavioral Decision Making最新文献

Cherry-Picking Tolerance About Untruthful News 对不真实新闻的选择性容忍

IF 1.8 3区心理学

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2024-12-08 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.70003

Xilin Li, Christopher K. Hsee, Shu Wang

{"title":"Cherry-Picking Tolerance About Untruthful News","authors":"Xilin Li, Christopher K. Hsee, Shu Wang","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70003","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>People are increasingly worried about untruthfulness in news reporting. We distinguish between two types of untruthfulness: apparent untruthfulness (containing false information) and consequential untruthfulness (giving readers a wrong impression of the truth). Consequential untruthfulness can be caused by both the presence of false information and cherry-picking (reporting only parts of the truth). Despite this, we find that people's perception of untruthfulness depends largely on apparent untruthfulness. Consequently, they treat news that cherry-picks information less negatively (e.g., less likely to criticize it and more likely to share it with others) than they treat news that contains false information, when the former is more consequentially untruthful than the latter. We dub this phenomenon as <i>cherry-picking tolerance</i>. We also find that prompting people to think about the consequence of the news report (i.e., the impressions people form after they read the news reports) will mitigate the cherry-picking tolerance. This research draws attention to the widespread practice of cherry-picking in news reporting and calls for a new look at what constitutes fake news.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"37 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142860254","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

Prescribing Agreement Improves Judgments and Decisions 处方协议可改进判决和决定

IF 1.8 3区心理学

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2024-11-26 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.70004

Pavel V. Voinov, Günther Knoblich

{"title":"Prescribing Agreement Improves Judgments and Decisions","authors":"Pavel V. Voinov, Günther Knoblich","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70004","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We investigated whether prescribing agreement improves the quality of judgments and decisions. Participants were first asked to provide judgments or decisions individually. Then, they either revised their initial judgments and decisions based on a partners' response, or they provided a joint judgment agreed upon with their partner. In the latter condition, we allowed for a minimal communication protocol restricted to acceptance and rejection responses to each other's proposals. In the Agreement condition, participants improved both in a cognitive (Experiment 1a) and a perceptual decision task (Experiment 1b). The cognitive task agreement allowed participants to improve above the level of accuracy achieved with revision. Surprisingly, the prescribing agreement improved the quality of the initial independent decisions. In a judgment task (Experiment 2), the prescribing agreement led to more accurate judgments because partners weighed each other's judgments more equally than in the Revision condition where they gave higher weight to their own judgments. We conclude that prescribing agreement reduces egocentric discounting bias and motivates individuals to be more accurate. These results not only demonstrate that collective benefits in judgment and decision making can be accrued without verbal communication but also suggest potential limitations of this approach.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"37 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142737488","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

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