行为浪费但感觉满足:理解厌恶浪费

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
Ro'i Zultan, Ori Weisel, Yaniv Shani
{"title":"行为浪费但感觉满足:理解厌恶浪费","authors":"Ro'i Zultan,&nbsp;Ori Weisel,&nbsp;Yaniv Shani","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>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 <i>more wasteful</i> outcome over a more frugal outcome, as long as it eliminates the <i>feeling</i> 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"38 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.70011","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Acting Wastefully but Feeling Satisfied: Understanding Waste Aversion\",\"authors\":\"Ro'i Zultan,&nbsp;Ori Weisel,&nbsp;Yaniv Shani\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/bdm.70011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>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 <i>more wasteful</i> outcome over a more frugal outcome, as long as it eliminates the <i>feeling</i> 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48112,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making\",\"volume\":\"38 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.70011\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.70011\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.70011","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为获得同样的结果而支付的钱比本来可以支付的多是一种浪费。在四个实验中,我们表明,厌恶浪费可以让人们更喜欢一个更浪费的结果,而不是一个更节俭的结果,只要它消除了浪费的感觉。在研究1中,我们测量了参与者对彩票结果的满意度,发现如果他们意识到一个反事实,他们可以花更少的钱来获得主导结果,那么他们对自己获得的结果相对于低劣的、主导的结果更不满意。研究2显示,对导致结果的决定负责并不会加剧这种效应,这表明浪费比后悔更能解释这种效应。研究3将结果满意度扩展到决策。参与者根据他们对一个反事实的认识,改变了他们对继续或终止寻找公寓的选择,这个反事实会使导致结果的过程变得浪费或不浪费。对浪费的厌恶导致参与者将他们的搜索范围扩大到完全基于他们的偏好和期望的范围之外。研究4在与回报相关的决策中重复了这些发现。综上所述,这四项研究表明,在现实世界的经验中,浪费厌恶导致对主导结果的更高满意度。这种效应不依赖于决策后悔,可能导致次优决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Acting Wastefully but Feeling Satisfied: Understanding Waste Aversion

Acting Wastefully but Feeling Satisfied: Understanding Waste Aversion

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral Decision Making is a multidisciplinary journal with a broad base of content and style. It publishes original empirical reports, critical review papers, theoretical analyses and methodological contributions. The Journal also features book, software and decision aiding technique reviews, abstracts of important articles published elsewhere and teaching suggestions. The objective of the Journal is to present and stimulate behavioral research on decision making and to provide a forum for the evaluation of complementary, contrasting and conflicting perspectives. These perspectives include psychology, management science, sociology, political science and economics. Studies of behavioral decision making in naturalistic and applied settings are encouraged.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信