邻近偏差:空间距离和结果效价对概率判断的交互作用

IF 4 2区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS
Jennifer Seokhwa Hong, Chiara Longoni, Vicki G. Morwitz
{"title":"邻近偏差:空间距离和结果效价对概率判断的交互作用","authors":"Jennifer Seokhwa Hong,&nbsp;Chiara Longoni,&nbsp;Vicki G. Morwitz","doi":"10.1002/jcpy.1341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Across a range of decision contexts, we provide evidence of a novel <i>proximity bias</i> in probability judgments, whereby spatial distance and outcome valence systematically interact in determining probability judgments. Six hypothetical and incentive-compatible experiments (combined <i>N</i> = 4007) show that a positive outcome is estimated as more likely to occur when near than distant, whereas a negative outcome is estimated as less likely to occur when near than distant (studies 1–6). The proximity bias is explained by wishful thinking and thus perceptions of outcome desirability (study 3), and it does not manifest when an outcome is less relevant for the self, such as the case of outcomes with little consequence for the self (studies 4 and 5) or when estimating outcomes for others who are irrelevant to the self (study 6). Overall, the proximity bias we document deepens our understanding of the antecedents of probability judgments.</p>","PeriodicalId":48365,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Consumer Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Proximity bias: Interactive effect of spatial distance and outcome valence on probability judgments\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer Seokhwa Hong,&nbsp;Chiara Longoni,&nbsp;Vicki G. Morwitz\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jcpy.1341\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Across a range of decision contexts, we provide evidence of a novel <i>proximity bias</i> in probability judgments, whereby spatial distance and outcome valence systematically interact in determining probability judgments. Six hypothetical and incentive-compatible experiments (combined <i>N</i> = 4007) show that a positive outcome is estimated as more likely to occur when near than distant, whereas a negative outcome is estimated as less likely to occur when near than distant (studies 1–6). The proximity bias is explained by wishful thinking and thus perceptions of outcome desirability (study 3), and it does not manifest when an outcome is less relevant for the self, such as the case of outcomes with little consequence for the self (studies 4 and 5) or when estimating outcomes for others who are irrelevant to the self (study 6). Overall, the proximity bias we document deepens our understanding of the antecedents of probability judgments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48365,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Consumer Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Consumer Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcpy.1341\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Consumer Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcpy.1341","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在一系列决策情境中,我们提供了概率判断中一种新的接近偏差的证据,即空间距离和结果价值在决定概率判断时系统性地相互作用。六项假设和激励相容的实验(总人数= 4007)表明,正面结果在近处发生的可能性比远处大,而负面结果在近处发生的可能性比远处小(研究 1-6)。就近偏差可以用一厢情愿的想法来解释,因此也可以用对结果可取性的感知来解释(研究 3),当结果与自己的相关性较低时,如对自己影响不大的结果(研究 4 和 5),或在估计与自己无关的他人的结果时(研究 6),就不会表现出就近偏差。总之,我们记录的接近性偏差加深了我们对概率判断前因的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Proximity bias: Interactive effect of spatial distance and outcome valence on probability judgments

Across a range of decision contexts, we provide evidence of a novel proximity bias in probability judgments, whereby spatial distance and outcome valence systematically interact in determining probability judgments. Six hypothetical and incentive-compatible experiments (combined N = 4007) show that a positive outcome is estimated as more likely to occur when near than distant, whereas a negative outcome is estimated as less likely to occur when near than distant (studies 1–6). The proximity bias is explained by wishful thinking and thus perceptions of outcome desirability (study 3), and it does not manifest when an outcome is less relevant for the self, such as the case of outcomes with little consequence for the self (studies 4 and 5) or when estimating outcomes for others who are irrelevant to the self (study 6). Overall, the proximity bias we document deepens our understanding of the antecedents of probability judgments.

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
8.40
自引率
14.60%
发文量
51
期刊介绍: The Journal of Consumer Psychology is devoted to psychological perspectives on the study of the consumer. It publishes articles that contribute both theoretically and empirically to an understanding of psychological processes underlying consumers thoughts, feelings, decisions, and behaviors. Areas of emphasis include, but are not limited to, consumer judgment and decision processes, attitude formation and change, reactions to persuasive communications, affective experiences, consumer information processing, consumer-brand relationships, affective, cognitive, and motivational determinants of consumer behavior, family and group decision processes, and cultural and individual differences in consumer behavior.
×
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