无差异人:不可用选项对偏好构建的影响

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
Evan Polman, Rusty A. Stough
{"title":"无差异人:不可用选项对偏好构建的影响","authors":"Evan Polman,&nbsp;Rusty A. Stough","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2326","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>People want what they cannot have. Yet would people still covet a forgone option when they have no initial preference for it? We examined this question in two parts by identifying five unique types of choice indifference and testing what choices people make when they have “no preference” for receiving an endowed good that subsequently becomes unavailable. First, we found that feeling indifferent among options is a common response to making decisions; furthermore, we found that previously established effects are significantly altered when accounting for participants' indifference. Second, when people experience the loss of a would-be endowed option, we found that they replace it with a similar option, to such an extent that they choose an option that is inferior to other available options. Together, our results demonstrate that the classic endowment effect does not only emerge after people are endowed but beforehand. That is, when people expect to be endowed with a good, they behave like it is already theirs and replace its loss with a similar good even when (1) they are initially indifferent to it and (2) they could choose something better.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.2326","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Homo indifferencus: Effects of unavailable options on preference construction\",\"authors\":\"Evan Polman,&nbsp;Rusty A. Stough\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/bdm.2326\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>People want what they cannot have. Yet would people still covet a forgone option when they have no initial preference for it? We examined this question in two parts by identifying five unique types of choice indifference and testing what choices people make when they have “no preference” for receiving an endowed good that subsequently becomes unavailable. First, we found that feeling indifferent among options is a common response to making decisions; furthermore, we found that previously established effects are significantly altered when accounting for participants' indifference. Second, when people experience the loss of a would-be endowed option, we found that they replace it with a similar option, to such an extent that they choose an option that is inferior to other available options. Together, our results demonstrate that the classic endowment effect does not only emerge after people are endowed but beforehand. That is, when people expect to be endowed with a good, they behave like it is already theirs and replace its loss with a similar good even when (1) they are initially indifferent to it and (2) they could choose something better.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48112,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.2326\",\"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.2326\",\"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.2326","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

人们想要他们不能拥有的东西。然而,当人们最初没有偏好时,他们还会觊觎一个被放弃的选择吗?我们通过确定五种不同类型的选择冷漠,并测试当人们“没有偏好”接受一种随后无法获得的天赋商品时,他们会做出什么选择,从而分两部分研究了这个问题。首先,我们发现,在做出决定时,对各种选择漠不关心是一种常见的反应;此外,我们发现,当考虑到参与者的冷漠时,先前建立的效应显着改变。其次,我们发现,当人们失去一种可能被赋予的期权时,他们会用一种类似的期权来取代它,以至于他们选择的期权比其他可获得的期权更差。综上所述,我们的研究结果表明,经典禀赋效应不仅出现在人们被赋之后,而且出现在人们被赋之前。也就是说,当人们期望被赋予某种商品时,他们的行为就像它已经是他们的一样,即使(1)他们最初对它漠不关心,(2)他们可以选择更好的东西,他们也会用类似的商品来代替它的损失。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Homo indifferencus: Effects of unavailable options on preference construction

People want what they cannot have. Yet would people still covet a forgone option when they have no initial preference for it? We examined this question in two parts by identifying five unique types of choice indifference and testing what choices people make when they have “no preference” for receiving an endowed good that subsequently becomes unavailable. First, we found that feeling indifferent among options is a common response to making decisions; furthermore, we found that previously established effects are significantly altered when accounting for participants' indifference. Second, when people experience the loss of a would-be endowed option, we found that they replace it with a similar option, to such an extent that they choose an option that is inferior to other available options. Together, our results demonstrate that the classic endowment effect does not only emerge after people are endowed but beforehand. That is, when people expect to be endowed with a good, they behave like it is already theirs and replace its loss with a similar good even when (1) they are initially indifferent to it and (2) they could choose something better.

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