An official website of the United States government
Abstract The phenomenon of ambiguity aversion suggests that people prefer options that offer precisely rather than imprecisely known chances of success. However, past work on people's responses to ambiguity in health treatment contexts found ambiguity seeking rather than aversion. The present work addressed whether such findings reflected a broad tendency for ambiguity seeking in health treatment contexts or whether specific attributions for ambiguity play a substantial role. In three studies, people choose between two treatment options that involved similar underlying probabilities, except that the probabilities for one option involved ambiguity. The attributions offered for the ambiguity played an important role in the results. For example, when the range of probabilities associated with an ambiguous treatment was attributed to the fact that different studies yield different results, participants tended to show ambiguity aversion or indifference. However, when the range was attributed to something that participants could control (e.g., regular application of a cream) or something about which they were overoptimistic (e.g., their immune system function), participants tended to show ambiguity seeking. Health professionals should be mindful of how people will interpret and use information about ambiguity when choosing among treatments.
more »
« less
The Commonness Fallacy: Commonly Chosen Options Have Less Choice Appeal Than People Think
In predicting what others are likely to choose (e.g., vanilla ice cream or tiramisu), people can display a commonness fallacy—overestimating how often common (but bland) options (e.g., vanilla ice cream) will be chosen over rarer (but exciting) options (e.g., tiramisu). Given common items are often chosen merely because they are frequently offered, not because they are preferred (tiramisu is rarely offered as a dessert), commonness is not necessarily diagnostic of future choice. Studies 1a and 1b document the commonness fallacy in forecasts of single and repeated choices. Study 2 replicates it in an incentivecompatible choice context. Studies 3 and 4 uncover when and why perceived commonness is relied upon. Perceived commonness is spontaneously used as a guide when forecasting others’ choices (as though people blur what has been chosen with what people will choose), but not when forecasting what others would be pleased to receive. Choice forecasters leaned upon perceived commonness over and above many other cues, including their own choices, the goods’ prices, and even how much others were thought to like each option. Upon conscious reflection, choice forecasters abandon commonness and gravitate toward more normatively defensible input. Studies 5 and 6 used correlational and experimental methods, respectively, to examine antecedents of the commonness fallacy. Study 7 illustrates a literally costly consequence: A 2-part marketplace simulation study found amateur sellers’ reliance on perceived commonness prompted them to systematically misprice goods.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1749608
- PAR ID:
- 10162184
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of personality and social psychology
- Volume:
- 118
- ISSN:
- 0022-3514
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1-21
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
null (Ed.)In our everyday lives, we often have to choose between many different options. When deciding what to order off a menu, for example, or what type of soda to buy in the supermarket, we have a range of possibilities to consider. So how do we decide what to go for? Researchers believe we make such choices by assigning a subjective value to each of the available options. But we can do this in several different ways. We could look at every option in turn, and then choose the best one once we have considered them all. This is a so-called ‘rational’ decision-making approach. But we could also consider each of the options one at a time and stop as soon as we find one that is good enough. This strategy is known as ‘satisficing’. In both approaches, we use our eyes to gather information about the items available. Most scientists have assumed that merely looking at an item – such as a particular brand of soda – does not affect how we feel about that item. But studies in which animals or people choose between much smaller sets of objects – usually up to four – suggest otherwise. The results from these studies indicate that looking at an item makes that item more attractive to the observer, thereby increasing its subjective value. Thomas et al. now show that gaze also plays an active role in the decision-making process when people are spoilt for choice. Healthy volunteers looked at pictures of up to 36 snack foods on a screen and were asked to select the one they would most like to eat. The researchers then recorded the volunteers’ choices and response times, and used eye-tracking technology to follow the direction of their gaze. They then tested which of the various decision-making strategies could best account for all the behaviour. The results showed that the volunteers’ behaviour was best explained by computer models that assumed that looking at an item increases its subjective value. Moreover, the results confirmed that we do not examine all items and then choose the best one. But neither do we use a purely satisficing approach: the volunteers chose the last item they had looked at less than half the time. Instead, we make decisions by comparing individual items against one another, going back and forth between them. The longer we look at an item, the more attractive it becomes, and the more likely we are to choose it.more » « less
-
When considering whether to purchase consumer products, people consider both the items' attractiveness and their brand labels. Brands may affect the decision process through various mechanisms. For example, brand labels may provide direct support for their paired products, or they may indirectly affect choice outcomes by changing the way that people evaluate and compare their options. To examine these possibilities, we combined computational modeling with an eye-tracking experiment in which subjects made clothing choices with brand labels either present or absent. Subjects' choices were consistent with both the attractiveness of the clothing items and, to a smaller extent, the appeal of the brands. In line with the direct support mechanism, subjects who spent more time looking at the brands were more likely to choose the options with the preferred brands. When a clothing item was more attractive, subjects were more likely to look longer at the associated brand label, but not vice versa. In line with indirect mechanisms, in the presence of brand labels subjects exerted more caution and showed marginally less attentional bias in their choices. This research sheds light on the interplay between gaze and choice in decisions involving brand information, indicating that brands have both direct and indirect influences on choice.more » « less
-
The present and future transition of lives and activities into virtual worlds --- worlds in which people interact using avatars --- creates novel privacy challenges and opportunities. Avatars present an opportunity for people to control the way they are represented to other users and the information shared or implied by that representation. Importantly, users with marginalized identities may have a unique set of concerns when choosing what information about themselves (and their identities) to conceal or expose in an avatar. We present a theoretical basis, supported by two empirical studies, to understand how marginalization impacts the ways in which people create avatars and perceive others' avatars: what information do people choose to reveal or conceal, and how do others react to these choices? In Study 1, participants from historically marginalized backgrounds felt more concerned about being devalued based on their identities in virtual worlds, which related to a lower desire to reveal their identities in an avatar, compared to non-marginalized participants. However, in Study 2 participants were often uncomfortable with others changing visible characteristics in an avatar, weighing concerns about others' anonymity with possible threats to their own safety and security online. Our findings demonstrate asymmetries in what information people prefer the self vs. others to reveal in their online representations: participants want privacy for themselves but to feel informed about others. Although avatars allow people to choose what information to reveal about themselves, people from marginalized backgrounds may still face backlash for concealing components of their identities to avoid harm.more » « less
-
Abstract As an increasing number of machine learning (ML) products enter the research-to-operations (R2O) pipeline, researchers have anecdotally noted a perceived hesitancy by operational forecasters to adopt this relatively new technology. One explanation often cited in the literature is that this perceived hesitancy derives from the complex and opaque nature of ML methods. Because modern ML models are trained to solve tasks by optimizing a potentially complex combination of mathematical weights, thresholds, and nonlinear cost functions, it can be difficult to determine how these models reach a solution from their given input. However, it remains unclear to what degree a model’s transparency may influence a forecaster’s decision to use that model or if that impact differs between ML and more traditional (i.e., non-ML) methods. To address this question, a survey was offered to forecaster and researcher participants attending the 2021 NOAA Hazardous Weather Testbed (HWT) Spring Forecasting Experiment (SFE) with questions about how participants subjectively perceive and compare machine learning products to more traditionally derived products. Results from this study revealed few differences in how participants evaluated machine learning products compared to other types of guidance. However, comparing the responses between operational forecasters, researchers, and academics exposed notable differences in what factors the three groups considered to be most important for determining the operational success of a new forecast product. These results support the need for increased collaboration between the operational and research communities. Significance StatementParticipants of the 2021 Hazardous Weather Testbed Spring Forecasting Experiment were surveyed to assess how machine learning products are perceived and evaluated in operational settings. The results revealed little difference in how machine learning products are evaluated compared to more traditional methods but emphasized the need for explainable product behavior and comprehensive end-user training.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000172
