Journal of Behavioral Decision Making最新文献

{"title":"Do Anxious People Take Fewer Risks? A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Trait Anxiety and Dispositional Risk Taking","authors":"Paul C. Price,&nbsp;Yvette de Jesus,&nbsp;Leslie Fernandez,&nbsp;Joshua Hurd","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70054","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70054","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The present study was a meta-analysis of previous studies on the correlation between trait anxiety and dispositional risk taking. Although it is often claimed that people who are generally anxious (i.e., higher in trait anxiety) have a strong tendency to avoid taking risks across a variety of situations (i.e., are lower in dispositional risk taking), the mean correlation across 80 effect sizes representing over 8000 unique participants was only −0.07, with a very high level of unexplained heterogeneity. An analysis focusing only on the relatively large subset of studies using the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-T) as the measure of anxiety and the Balloon Analog Risk Task (BART) as the measure of dispositional risk taking revealed a mean correlation that was essentially zero. The only statistically significant moderator was the proportion of female participants in the study, with larger proportions associated with stronger negative correlations. However, the analysis also revealed several other moderators that should be studied in future research. Specifically, the correlation may be stronger or more consistently negative when the anxiety measure is something other than the STAI-T, when the risk-taking measure is a self-report risk propensity measure, and when the risk-taking measure precedes the anxiety measure. These results have important implications for the definition and measurement of both trait anxiety and risk taking and for theories about how they are related.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"38 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145848108","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":"Similarity and Consistency in Algorithm-Guided Exploration","authors":"Ludwig Danwitz,&nbsp;Lars Hornuf,&nbsp;Sebastian Fehrler,&nbsp;Hsuan-Yu Lin,&nbsp;Yongping Bao,&nbsp;Fabian Dvorak,&nbsp;Bettina von Helversen","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70055","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70055","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Algorithmic advice has the potential to significantly improve human decision-making, especially in dynamic and complex tasks that require a balance between exploration and exploitation. This study examines conditions under which individuals are willing to accept advice from algorithms in such scenarios, focusing on the interaction between participants' exploration preferences and those of the advising algorithm. In an online experiment, we designed reinforcement learning algorithms to prioritize either exploration or exploitation and observed participants' decision-making behavior, modeled using a cognitive framework analogous to the algorithm. Contrary to expectations, participants did not show a preference for algorithms that matched their own exploration tendencies. In particular, participants were more likely to follow the advice of exploitative, consistent algorithms, possibly interpreting consistency as an indicator of competence. Although the participants benefited from the advice of the exploratory algorithm, their reluctance to follow it, regardless of whether the recommendation had been ignored previously or not, highlights a potential challenge in promoting effective collaboration between humans and algorithms. Explorative algorithms have the potential to promote behavioral diversification, but this effect is negated when humans disregard their advice. In such cases, algorithmic guidance can unintentionally decrease behavioral diversity by reinforcing established patterns.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"38 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.70055","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145750783","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":"Assessing Nudge Impact: A Comprehensive Second-Order Meta-Analysis","authors":"Bo Hu,&nbsp;Ziqian Xia,&nbsp;Qingcheng Guo,&nbsp;Chang Lu,&nbsp;Sara M. Constantino,&nbsp;Xingda Ju","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70053","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70053","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Nudging as a strategy to alter behaviors has garnered increasing attention from both researchers and policymakers. Here, we conduct a second-order meta-analysis, synthesizing 13 articles (14 meta-analyses) that include 1638 primary studies and approximately 30 million participants. We find a small aggregated effect size across these meta-analyses (<i>d</i> = 0.27, 95% CI [0.16, 0.38]), which drops to <i>d</i> = 0.004 after adjusting for publication bias. Examining the methodological quality of the meta-analyses, we find that most were rated as low or critically low, suggesting that our findings, which inherit these limitations, should be interpreted with caution. This study provides the most comprehensive synthesis of the effectiveness of nudging to date, while underscoring the urgent need for higher quality, preregistered meta-analyses to clarify the true impact.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"38 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145750626","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":"Precommitment in Stochastic Versus Deterministic Social Dilemmas","authors":"David J. Hardisty,&nbsp;Amir Sepehri,&nbsp;Howard Kunreuther,&nbsp;David H. Krantz,&nbsp;Poonam Arora","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70052","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70052","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Many real-world social dilemmas require interdependent people to repeatedly protect against a large loss that has a low probability of occurring. Examples include protecting against disease outbreak (e.g., COVID-19), terrorism (shared border security), or extreme weather events (from climate change). Decisions on whether to invest in protection may be made period by period (e.g., month by month), or investment may be precommitted in advance for a number of periods. How does precommitment influence cooperation in these situations? A series of four studies (plus one supplemental study) investigates this question, using incentive-compatible, repeated social dilemmas with large-magnitude, low-probability losses. These studies found that in stochastic social dilemmas, binding precommitment increases cooperation, but nonbinding precommitment has little effect, and in deterministic social dilemmas, binding precommitment decreases cooperation. These patterns were driven by changes in responsiveness to probabilities and interactions with counterparts, with implications for how to structure real-world dilemmas to increase cooperative investment in protection.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"38 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.70052","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145750491","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":"Me?! Never! Social Distance as a Moderator of Other Contextual Factors on Responses to Ethical Scenarios","authors":"Nelson B. Amaral","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70050","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70050","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The present research investigates how changes in the extent to which decision-makers rely on concrete or abstract thinking (i.e., construal level) influence responses to ethical scenarios as well as the relationship between those responses and actual, recalled, unethical behavior. Using 18 different scenarios, across three studies, simultaneous changes in construal level are employed to reveal the importance of social distance—whether the decision-maker is described as the self or a hypothetical stranger—as a moderator of the effects of other changes in construal level. Study 1 also investigates a potential alternative mechanism, and Study 2 provides evidence for the mediating role of thoughts that are associated with changes in considerations related to the means and activities required to behave unethically and the benefits of behaving unethically. In the final study, self-reported prior bad behavior is compared to predictions about the same behaviors in order to investigate the role of construal level and social distance on the correlations between predicted and recalled unethical behavior. The article concludes with a brief discussion of the theoretical and practical implications of the present research.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"38 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.70050","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145626399","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":"Size Does Not Matter: Numeracy and the Effect of Quantity Information on Consumers' Price Judgments","authors":"Janet Kleber,&nbsp;Arnd Florack,&nbsp;Ellen Peters","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70051","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70051","url":null,"abstract":"<p>A product's printed quantity information (e.g., 12 oz) is thought to provide meaningful information for product evaluations. However, previous research suggests that consumers often do not weigh this information. It remains unclear whether some people, in fact, do weigh the information and what factors (e.g., package design) might increase or decrease such a consideration. In one lab experiment and one eye-tracking experiment, we examined the influence of individual differences in objective numeric abilities on the perception and use of quantity information. In both experiments, participants indicated willingness-to-pay judgments for consumer goods (e.g., chocolate and cereals) that varied in their quantity (e.g., 100 vs. 200 g). In each case, we observed an interaction between objective numeracy and quantity on willingness-to-pay judgments. More numerate individuals were more likely to look at quantity information and to use this information in their willingness-to-pay judgments, whereas people with lower numeracy often did not differentiate between quantities. Variations in package design did not change this effect, but the presence of additional quantity indicators increased the use of the original quantity information for people who were more and less numerate. Implications for consumer protection are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"38 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.70051","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145619167","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":"Influencing Confidence: Testing Ways to Increase or Decrease Confidence in Knowledge","authors":"Eric R. Stone,&nbsp;Andrew M. Parker,&nbsp;Annie H. Somerville,&nbsp;Brooke Nixon,&nbsp;Rowan Kemmerly,&nbsp;Michelle M. Bongard","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70048","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper examines approaches for influencing people's confidence in their knowledge without influencing knowledge. Three studies examined the relative effectiveness of training and false feedback approaches. Participants chose which of two IKEA products they thought was more expensive and indicated their confidence in that judgment for 50 product pairs. In Study 1, participants took part in one of five conditions designed to manipulate their confidence: false feedback-increasing, false feedback-decreasing, training-increasing, training-decreasing, or control. For false feedback, we told participants they did very well or poorly on the task. For training-increasing, we gave participants information about IKEA pricing that appeared useful but was difficult to implement. For training-decreasing, we developed an automated calibration training technique that provided personalized calibration feedback consisting of a calibration diagram accompanied by textual summary information and advice. Neither the false feedback nor training approach increased confidence on 50 subsequent knowledge-confidence judgments. However, both manipulations designed to reduce confidence were successful, with a substantially larger effect in the calibration training condition. In Study 2, we adapted the calibration training approach to provide false feedback indicating participants were either underconfident or overconfident. Both the original calibration training pproach and the new false feedback approach indicating overconfidence reduced confidence, and the false feedback approach indicating underconfidence increased confidence. Study 3 tested the effectiveness of this new false feedback approach on an on-line rather than student sample, finding essentially the same results as those in Study 2. Throughout the three studies, the effects of the manipulations extended to overconfidence, overall calibration, and the Brier score. The results provide a potential tool for research and practice regarding confidence in knowledge.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"38 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.70048","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145429342","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":"A Spillover Effect of Altruistic Cheating: When Benefitting Others Goes Wrong","authors":"Anat Halevy,&nbsp;Guy Hochman,&nbsp;Timothy Levine,&nbsp;Rachel Barkan,&nbsp;Shahar Ayal","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70049","url":null,"abstract":"<p>We identify a novel moral licensing mechanism: a spillover effect whereby seemingly altruistic acts increase subsequent self-serving dishonesty. Study 1 established this spillover effect, showing that initial altruistic cheating <i>sustains</i> later egoistic cheating at a higher level compared to when both acts are self-serving. Study 2 demonstrated that this effect is unidirectional. While the effect of altruistic cheating was replicated, initial egoistic cheating did not reduce later altruistic cheating. Study 3 found initial support for a moral credentials account over desensitization as the underlying mechanism. Study 4 confirmed this by showing that retroactively removing the altruistic justification eliminated the effect. The asymmetry of the spillover effect uncovers a more troubling aspect of moral licensing that undermines ethical boundaries and sustains dishonesty rather than simply enabling moral balance. Our findings expand current models of moral licensing by introducing a justification-based process that perpetuates unethical behavior. This helps explain how well-intentioned misconduct can escalate in individual and organizational contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"38 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.70049","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145366278","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":"All Together Now: Genes, Interpersonal Touch, and Self-Conscious Processes Jointly Guide Cooperative Behavior","authors":"Richard P. Bagozzi,&nbsp;Jason Stornelli,&nbsp;Willem Verbeke,&nbsp;Benjamin E. Bagozzi,&nbsp;Avik Chakrabarti,&nbsp;Tiffany Vu","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70046","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Cooperation and trust are critical parts of many relationships. However, such relationships are often studied in siloed ways, leading to incomplete explanations of behavior (e.g., from the point of view of a buyer or a seller, but not necessarily both). This paper makes three contributions to broadening this perspective. First, the authors develop a model incorporating individual differences (genetics), environmental (interpersonal touch), and psychological (empathy and trust) elements to shed light on when and how cooperation is influenced in dyadic relationships. Empathy was predicted to be elicited by the interaction of human touch and the COMT gene to induce, in turn, felt trust and cooperative behaviors. Second, the centipede game is used as a behaviorally relevant context to study how and under what conditions players cooperate while competing with each other. The results of a conditional serial mediation demonstrate that cooperative responses are guided by the interaction of touch and the COMT gene, where empathy and trust are mediators. Actual actions of players are recorded and real behaviors explained. In an additional registered experiment, the mediator, empathy, was manipulated to show that it had a positive effect on trust.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"38 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.70046","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145272307","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":"Effects of Descriptive Information on Mental Representations of Probability and Future Behavior in the Context of Personal Experience","authors":"Bridget B. Hayes,&nbsp;Eric R. Stone","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70044","url":null,"abstract":"<p>It is increasingly recognized that new information is filtered through the lens of prior experience. Research has shown descriptive probability information (“description”) often does not impact decisions for people who have previously observed a sample of outcomes related to the choice (“experience”). However, the effect of description on mental representations of risk probability in the presence of experience has rarely been examined. In two experiments, participants (<i>n</i> = 263 college students and <i>n</i> = 1032 MTurk workers) played a game that exposed them to a predetermined rate of wins and losses, after which some participants received information about the game's expected rate of losses. Description strongly impacted participants' verbatim estimates of the risk of losing the game. However, description had little or no detectable impact on participants' gist risk estimates. Further analysis showed that lower gist risk estimates were associated with later decisions to continue playing the game. Verbatim risk estimates were correlated with later decisions, but no effect was observed while controlling for the effects of gist on decisions. This research additionally tested two approaches to strengthening the effect of description on gist, finding a small effect of one approach but not the other. Results suggest that descriptive information materials delivered after experience may be less likely to alter future decisions if the information does not alter gist representations of risk.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"38 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.70044","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145272095","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}