《快报》:让决策者负起责任会让他们减少对损失的厌恶吗?三个研究的重复尝试。

IF 1.4 3区 心理学 Q4 PHYSIOLOGY
Johannes Rollwage, Jan Alexander Häusser, Stefan Schulz-Hardt
{"title":"《快报》:让决策者负起责任会让他们减少对损失的厌恶吗?三个研究的重复尝试。","authors":"Johannes Rollwage, Jan Alexander Häusser, Stefan Schulz-Hardt","doi":"10.1177/17470218251369493","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Holding people accountable has been heralded as a valuable measure for debiasing judgments and decisions. Vieider reported that holding people accountable for their decisions reduces <i>loss aversion</i>, the irrational tendency to overemphasize losses relative to gains. The present research initially aimed to clarify whether the reduced loss aversion under accountability reported by Vieider is driven by either process or outcome accountability. However, as we did not find any effects of either process or outcome accountability on loss aversion in two experiments, our focus shifted toward a direct replication attempt. Our third experiment used materials, procedures, and manipulations that closely matched those of the original study, and almost doubled its sample size. Despite these efforts, we still did not replicate Vieider's findings, with a Bayesian test providing substantial evidence in favor of the null hypothesis of no difference between experimental conditions. We discuss two potential reasons for this replication failure, namely the possible unsuitability of the loss aversion measure in the original study and our replication experiments, and the possibility of a missing link between accountability and loss aversion.</p>","PeriodicalId":20869,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"17470218251369493"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does holding decision-makers accountable make them less loss averse? A three-study replication attempt.\",\"authors\":\"Johannes Rollwage, Jan Alexander Häusser, Stefan Schulz-Hardt\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17470218251369493\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Holding people accountable has been heralded as a valuable measure for debiasing judgments and decisions. Vieider reported that holding people accountable for their decisions reduces <i>loss aversion</i>, the irrational tendency to overemphasize losses relative to gains. The present research initially aimed to clarify whether the reduced loss aversion under accountability reported by Vieider is driven by either process or outcome accountability. However, as we did not find any effects of either process or outcome accountability on loss aversion in two experiments, our focus shifted toward a direct replication attempt. Our third experiment used materials, procedures, and manipulations that closely matched those of the original study, and almost doubled its sample size. Despite these efforts, we still did not replicate Vieider's findings, with a Bayesian test providing substantial evidence in favor of the null hypothesis of no difference between experimental conditions. We discuss two potential reasons for this replication failure, namely the possible unsuitability of the loss aversion measure in the original study and our replication experiments, and the possibility of a missing link between accountability and loss aversion.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20869,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"17470218251369493\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218251369493\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHYSIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218251369493","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

让人们负起责任被认为是消除判断和决策偏见的一种有价值的措施。Vieider[(2009)。问责制对损失厌恶的影响。心理学报,132(1),96-101。报告指出,让人们对自己的决定负责可以减少对损失的厌恶,即与收益相比,过度考虑损失的非理性倾向。本研究的最初目的是澄清在视者报告的问责制下减少的损失厌恶是由过程问责制还是结果问责制驱动的。然而,由于我们在两个实验中没有发现过程问责制或结果问责制对损失厌恶的任何影响,我们的重点转向了直接复制尝试。我们的第三个实验使用的材料、程序和操作与最初的研究非常相似,样本量几乎翻了一番。尽管做出了这些努力,我们仍然没有复制Vieider的发现,贝叶斯检验提供了大量证据,支持实验条件之间没有差异的零假设。我们讨论了这种复制失败的两个潜在原因,即原始研究和我们的复制实验中损失厌恶度量可能不合适,以及问责制和损失厌恶之间可能缺少联系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Does holding decision-makers accountable make them less loss averse? A three-study replication attempt.

Holding people accountable has been heralded as a valuable measure for debiasing judgments and decisions. Vieider reported that holding people accountable for their decisions reduces loss aversion, the irrational tendency to overemphasize losses relative to gains. The present research initially aimed to clarify whether the reduced loss aversion under accountability reported by Vieider is driven by either process or outcome accountability. However, as we did not find any effects of either process or outcome accountability on loss aversion in two experiments, our focus shifted toward a direct replication attempt. Our third experiment used materials, procedures, and manipulations that closely matched those of the original study, and almost doubled its sample size. Despite these efforts, we still did not replicate Vieider's findings, with a Bayesian test providing substantial evidence in favor of the null hypothesis of no difference between experimental conditions. We discuss two potential reasons for this replication failure, namely the possible unsuitability of the loss aversion measure in the original study and our replication experiments, and the possibility of a missing link between accountability and loss aversion.

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
3.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
178
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Promoting the interests of scientific psychology and its researchers, QJEP, the journal of the Experimental Psychology Society, is a leading journal with a long-standing tradition of publishing cutting-edge research. Several articles have become classic papers in the fields of attention, perception, learning, memory, language, and reasoning. The journal publishes original articles on any topic within the field of experimental psychology (including comparative research). These include substantial experimental reports, review papers, rapid communications (reporting novel techniques or ground breaking results), comments (on articles previously published in QJEP or on issues of general interest to experimental psychologists), and book reviews. Experimental results are welcomed from all relevant techniques, including behavioural testing, brain imaging and computational modelling. QJEP offers a competitive publication time-scale. Accepted Rapid Communications have priority in the publication cycle and usually appear in print within three months. We aim to publish all accepted (but uncorrected) articles online within seven days. Our Latest Articles page offers immediate publication of articles upon reaching their final form. The journal offers an open access option called Open Select, enabling authors to meet funder requirements to make their article free to read online for all in perpetuity. Authors also benefit from a broad and diverse subscription base that delivers the journal contents to a world-wide readership. Together these features ensure that the journal offers authors the opportunity to raise the visibility of their work to a global audience.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信