Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others’ actions

Building on the assumption that interpersonal similarity is a form of social distance, the current research examines the manner in which similarity influences the representation and judgment of others’ actions. On the basis of a construal level approach, we hypothesized that greater levels of similarity would increase the relative weight of subordinate and secondary features of information in judgments of others’ actions. The results of four experiments showed that compared to corresponding judgments of a dissimilar target, participants exposed to a similar target person identified that person’s actions in relatively more subordinate means-related rather than superordinate ends-related terms (Experiment 1), perceived his or her actions to be determined more by feasibility and less by desirability concerns (Experiment 3), and gave more weight to secondary aspects in judgments of the target’s decisions (Experiment 2) and performance (Experiment 4). Implications for the study of interpersonal similarity, as well as social distance in general, are discussed.     

Even better than the real thing: Alternative outcome bias affects decision judgements and decision regret

Three experiments demonstrated that decisions resulting in considerable amounts of profit, but missed alternative outcomes of greater profits, were rated lower in quality and produced more regret than did decisions that returned lesser (or equal) amounts of profit but either did not miss or missed only slightly better alternatives. These effects were mediated by upward counterfactuals and moderated by participants’ orientation to the decision context. That decision evaluations were affected by the availability and magnitude of alternative outcomes rather than the positivity of actual outcomes is counter to the outcome bias effect—a bias in which decisions are rated more positively when they led to more positive outcomes (despite a priori probabilities associated with the decision outcomes). Experiment 3 demonstrated that these effects represent a bias that occurs even when it is clear that the process by which decisions were made followed rational decision processes. This research suggests that when alternative worlds are even better than the desirable outcomes experienced, affect and cognition may be more strongly linked to the magnitude of alternative realities than to obtained outcomes.     

Cognitive strategies for coping with uncertain outcomes

It was proposed that, when faced with highly desirable but uncertain outcomes, people may employ cognitive strategies in an attempt to influence their future affective responses to the outcomes in question. The present study attempted to demonstrate the use of two such strategies. First, it was hypothesized that when people are faced with a low probability of obtaining a highly desirable outcome, they tend to derogate that outcome by perceiving it as less attractive. Second, it was proposed that when people are faced with uncertainty regarding the occurrence of a highly desirable outcome, they tend to underestimate the likelihood of its occurrence, in an attempt to avoid future disappointment. These hypotheses were tested within the context of a lottery in which subjects were given a low, moderate, or high chance of winning a prize that was either high or low in attractiveness. As predicted, subjects viewed the highly attractive prize as less valuable and attractive when they had a low probability of winning than when the probability of winning was moderate or high. Subjects also perceived themselves as less likely to win when the prize was high in attractiveness than when it was low in attractiveness. The relationship of these findings to studies of self-handicapping and attribute ambiguity is discussed.     

The Influence of Positive Affect on the Decision Rule in Risk Situations: Focus on Outcome (and Especially Avoidance of Loss) Rather Than Probability

Two experiments examined the influence of positive affect on probability estimation and choice. Participants in whom positive affect had been induced, as well as no-manipulation controls, were asked to make both numerical evaluations of verbal probabilities in three-outcome gambles and actual betting decisions about similar gambles. Results from Experiment 1 showed the phenomenon labeledcautious optimism:Positive affect participants significantly overestimated the probabilities associated with phrases for winning relative to their estimates of probability of losing for the same phrases (optimism), while participants in a control condition did not; yet, in actual gambling situations, affect condition participants were much less likely to gamble than were controls when a real loss was possible (caution). Results of the betting task from Experiment 2 further indicated that affect participants used a betting-decision rule that was different from that of controls: They bet less than controls in gambles where potential losses were large, even though probability of loss was small, and they bet more than controls in gambles where the amount of the potential loss was small, even though the probability of loss was moderate or large. These findings suggest that positive affect can promote an overt shift from a decision rule focusing primarily on probabilities to one focusing on utilities or outcome values, especially for losses. Taken together, the results are compatible with an interpretation of the influence of positive affect in terms of an elaboration of positive cognitive material, and purposive behavior in decisions, rather than in terms of mere response bias.     

Extreme Outcomes Sway Risky Decisions from Experience

Whether buying stocks or playing the slots, people making real‐world risky decisions often rely on their experiences with the risks and rewards. These decisions, however, do not occur in isolation but are embedded in a rich context of other decisions, outcomes, and experiences. In this paper, we systematically evaluate how the local context of other rewarding outcomes alters risk preferences. Through a series of four experiments on decisions from experience, we provide evidence for an extreme‐outcome rule, whereby people overweight the most extreme outcomes (highest and lowest) in a given context. As a result, people should be more risk seeking for gains than losses, even with equally likely outcomes. Across the experiments, the decision context was varied so that the same outcomes served as the high extreme, low extreme, or neither. As predicted, people were more risk seeking for relative gains, but only when the risky option potentially led to the high‐extreme outcome. Similarly, people were more risk averse for relative losses, but only when the risky option potentially led to the low‐extreme outcome. We conclude that in risky decisions from experience, the biggest wins and the biggest losses seem to matter more than they should. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Boundary effects of vague risk information on taxpayer decisions

In compliance decisions, the decision maker usually has only vague or ambiguous knowledge of the probability of being caught and the outcome (amount of penalty). An experiment is reported which extends work on effects of probability ambiguity by manipulating outcome ambiguity as well. When outcomes were limited to a bounded range and probabilities ranged between their natural boundaries [0, 1] in experimental tax decisions, symmetrical boundary effects were found in which vague estimates for both the probability and outcome dimensions caused vagueness aversion (and higher compliance) when the vague estimate was near the more favorable lower boundary of either dimension and vagueness seeking (and lower compliance) when the vague estimate was near the less favorable upper boundary. Probability and outcome vagueness effects were found to be independent of the vagueness of the other dimension, and vagueness effects were not systematically related to the level of the other dimension.The results suggest that a common cognitive process mediates the impact of vagueness on both dimensions. This may be a vagueness-adjustment process in which vague estimates are adjusted toward the middle of the bounded range, or a vagueness-preference process in which vague outcomes, and vague probabilities as well, are evaluated based on utility considerations, as though probability were a tangible commodity. For increasing compliance, the results suggest that risk information should be disseminated only when risks of punishment are relatively high. When risks are low, random enforcement techniques that enhance vagueness become more effective.     

The Effect of Temporal Distance on Attitudes toward Imprecise Probabilities and Imprecise Outcomes

Many personal, managerial, and societal decisions involve uncertain or ambiguous consequences that will occur in the future. Yet, previous empirical research on ambiguity preferences has focused mainly on decisions with immediate outcomes. To close this gap in the literature, this paper examines ambiguity attitudes toward future prospects, particularly how they may differ from the attitudes toward comparable prospects in the present. On the basis of a recent paradigm, we first distinguish between two types of ambiguity: imprecise probabilities and imprecise outcomes. Then, in accordance with construal level theory, which shows that temporal distance increases the relative importance of outcomes over probabilities in evaluating prospects, we conjecture that temporal distance would moderate attitudes toward imprecise probabilities but amplify attitudes toward imprecise outcomes. Through a series of experiments, we demonstrate that when the prospects are in the future, individuals are less averse toward imprecise probabilities and more seeking toward imprecise outcomes. However, the effect is most prominent for prospects where both the probability and outcome dimensions are concurrently imprecise. The paper ends with a discussion on how dimension salience may have contributed to this result. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Precision of probability information and prominence of outcomes: A description and evaluation of decisions under uncertainty

Information about event probability upon which decisions depend may be more or less precise. The first section of this paper reports three experiments that investigated the relationship between this type of imprecision and the prominence that outcomes obtain in decisions. Participants had to rank order sets of six lotteries according to attractiveness. While the lotteries’ values were always precisely known precision of information about lottery chances varied. These experiments showed that increasing ambiguity tied decisions closer to lottery values. The second section shows that modeling participants’ decisions with the contingent weighting model suggests that this outcome prominence effect was not necessarily caused by any change in the respective weighting of probability and outcome information, but that it had probably occurred for purely mathematical reasons. The third part of this paper explores, by means of a computer simulation, (i) which weighting strategy is optimal when probabilities are imprecise and (ii) how participants’ decision behavior compared to a simple, but better adapted strategy. It shows that the weighting of probability information should not change with decreasing precision and it implies that participants’ performance suffered most from a lack of strategic consequence. Implications for decision making policy in general are discussed.     

The Directionality of Verbal Probability Expressions: Effects on Decisions,Predictions, and Probabilistic Reasoning

Verbal phrases denoting uncertainty are of two kinds: positive, suggesting the occurrence of a target outcome, and negative, drawing attention to its nonoccurrence (Teigen & Brun, 1995). This directionality is correlated with, but not identical to, high and low p values. Choice of phrase will in turn influence predictions and decisions. A treatment described as having “some possibility” of success will be recommended, as opposed to when it is described as “quite uncertain,” even if the probability of cure referred to by these two expressions is judged to be the same (Experiment 1). Individuals who formulate their chances of achieving a successful outcome in positive terms are supposed to make different decisions than individuals who use equivalent, but negatively formulated, phrases (Experiments 2 and 3). Finally, negative phrases lead to fewer conjunction errors in probabilistic reasoning than do positive phrases (Experiment 4). For instance, a combination of 2 “uncertain” outcomes is readily seen to be “very uncertain.” But positive phrases lead to fewer disjunction errors than do negative phrases. Thus verbal probabilistic phrases differ from numerical probabilities not primarily by being more “vague,” but by suggesting more clearly the kind of inferences that should be drawn.     

Waiting When Both Certainty and Magnitude Are Increasing: Certainty Overshadows Magnitude

In everyday decision making, people often face decisions with outcomes that differ on multiple dimensions. The trade‐off in preferences between magnitude, temporal proximity, and probability of an outcome is a fundamental concern in the decision‐making literature. Yet, their joint effects on behavior in an experience‐based decision‐making task are understudied. Two experiments examined the relative influences of the magnitude and probability of an outcome when both were increasing over a 10‐second delay. A first‐person shooter video game was adapted for this purpose. Experiment 1 showed that participants waited longer to ensure a higher probability of the outcome than to ensure a greater magnitude when experienced separately and together. Experiment 2 provided a precise method of comparing their relative control on waiting by having each increase at different rates. Both experiments revealed a stronger influence of increasing probability than increasing magnitude. The results were more consistent with hyperbolic discounting of probability than with cumulative prospect theory's decision weight function. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Revisions and Regret: The Cost of Changing your Mind

Decision reversals often imply improved decisions. Yet, people show a strong resistance against changing their minds. These are well‐established findings, which suggest that changed decisions carry a subjective cost, perhaps by being more strongly regretted. Three studies were conducted to explore participants' regret when making reversible decisions and to test the hypothesis that changing one's mind will increase post‐outcome regret. The first two studies employed the Ultimatum game and the Trust game. The third study used a variant of the Monty Hall problem. All games were conducted by individual participants playing interactively against a computer. The outcomes were designed to capture a common characteristic of real‐life decisions: they varied from rather negative to fairly positive, and for every outcome, it was possible to imagine both more and less profitable outcomes. In all experiments, those who changed their minds reported much stronger post‐outcome regret than those who did not change, even if the final outcomes were equally good (Experiments 2 and 3) or better (Experiment 1).This finding was not because of individual differences with respect to gender, tendency to regret, or tendency to maximize. Previous studies have found that those who change from a correct to wrong option regret more than those who select a wrong option directly. This study indicates that this finding is a special case of a more general phenomenon: changing one's mind seems to come with a cost, even when one ends up with favorable outcomes. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The gap between medical and monetary choices under risk persists in decisions for others

Decisions under risk in the medical domain have been found to systematically diverge from decisions in the monetary domain. When making choices between monetary options, people commonly rely on a decision strategy that trades off outcomes with their probabilities; when making choices between medical options, people tend to neglect probability information. In two experimental studies, we tested to what extent differences between medical and monetary decisions also emerge when the decision outcomes affect another person. Using a risky choice paradigm for medical and monetary decisions, we compared hypothetical decisions that participants made for themselves to decisions for a socially distant other (Study 1) and to recommendations as financial advisor or doctor (Study 2). In addition, we examined people's information search in a condition in which information about payoff distributions had to be learned from experiential sampling. Formal modeling and analyses of search behavior revealed a similarly pronounced gap between medical and monetary decisions in decisions for others as in decisions for oneself. Our results suggest that when making medical decisions, people try to avoid the worst outcome while neglecting its probability—even when the outcomes affect others rather than themselves.     

Good or Bad,We Want it Now: Fixed‐cost Present Bias for Gains and Losses Explains Magnitude Asymmetries in Intertemporal Choice

Intertemporal tradeoffs are ubiquitous in decision making, yet preferences for current versus future losses are rarely explored in empirical research. Whereas rational‐economic theory posits that neither outcome sign (gains vs. losses) nor outcome magnitude (small vs. large) should affect delay discount rates, both do, and moreover, they interact: in three studies, we show that whereas large gains are discounted less than small gains, large losses are discounted more than small losses. This interaction can be understood through a reconceptualization of fixed‐cost present bias, which has traditionally described a psychological preference for immediate rewards. First, our results establish present bias for losses—a psychological preference to have losses over with now. Present bias thus predicts increased discounting of future gains but decreased (or even negative) discounting of future losses. Second, because present bias preferences do not scale with the magnitude of possible gains or losses, they play a larger role, relative to other motivations for discounting, for small magnitude intertemporal decisions than for large magnitude intertemporal decisions. Present bias thus predicts less discounting of large gains than small gains but more discounting of large losses than small losses. The present research is the first to demonstrate that the effect of outcome magnitude on discount rates may be opposite for gains and losses and also the first to offer a theory (an extension of present bias) and process data to explain this interaction. The results suggest that policy efforts to encourage future‐oriented choices should frame outcomes as large gains or small losses. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Response-outcome contingency: Behavioral and judgmental effects of appetitive and aversive outcomes with college students

In two experiments, positive, negative, and zero response-outcome contingencies were responded to and rated by college students under a free-operant procedure. In Experiment 1, outcomes were either neutral or were associated with point gain. In Experiment 2, subjects were administered different outcome treatments: neutral outcomes, outcomes associated with money gain, or outcomes associated with money loss. In both experiments, subjects' judgments of response-outcome contingency and their operant responses were each strong linear functions of ΔP, the difference between the probability of an outcome given a response and the probability of an outcome given no response. Appetitive and aversive outcomes produced opposite and symmetrical response patterns. In Experiment 1, no differences in ratings occurred with neutral or appetitive outcomes; however, in Experiment 2, more potent appetitve outcomes led to somewhat more extreme ratings than either neutral or aversive outcomes. Increasing outcome probability produced only a slight bias in ratings of noncontingent problems in Experiment 1 and no bias in Experiment 2. Contrary to predictions derived from an analysis of superstitious behavior, increasing outcome probability in noncontingent problems decreased operant responding when outcomes were appetitive and increased operant responding when outcomes were aversive. Trend analyses revealed that Δ P was superior to several other metrics in predicting subjects' estimates of contingency and the behavioral effects of contingency. Operant responding was in closer accord with matching predictions than with maximizing predictions.     

Decision bias and personnel selection strategies

The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of two decisional biases—framing and cost salience—on personnel selection decisions. One hundred twenty-eight graduate and undergraduate students participated in a personnel selection simulation. Framing was manipulated by inducing participants to use either a “rejecting” strategy (identify those applicants whom you would not interview) or an “accepting” strategy (list those applicants whom you would interview). Cost salience was manipulated by making selection-related costs either implicit or explicit. Results showed that “accepting” strategy subjects selected less applicants to be interviewed than “rejecting” strategy subjects, but only when selection-related costs were made salient. More time was required for subjects to make their selection decisions when selection-related costs were made salient. Framing and cost salience also influenced the success probability thresholds used by subjects to select applicants. Limitations of this research and directions for future study were discussed.     

Eyewitness memory for a touching experience: accuracy differences between child and adult witnesses

Children, ages 5-6 and 9-10 years, and adults spent 6 min with a man (toucher) who administered a test that required interpersonal touch. The test was briefly interrupted by a woman (intruder). Afterward, the participant-witnesses provided a memory report that included free recall, answers to objective-memory questions, and two lineup identifications. Relative to the adults and older children, the 5- to 6-year-olds gave less complete free recall and made more errors in answering objective questions about the features and actions of the toucher and the intruder. On recognition tests, both the 5- to 6- and 9- to 10-year-olds were somewhat less likely than adults to make accurate lineup decisions about the toucher and much less likely to accurately identify the briefly seen intruder. Children may remember even salient stimuli and actions more poorly than adults do, but there was no evidence that children misremembered touches that did not occur.     

Intuitive Probabilities and the Limitation of Moral Imagination

There is a vast literature that seeks to uncover features underlying moral judgment by eliciting reactions to hypothetical scenarios such as trolley problems. These thought experiments assume that participants accept the outcomes stipulated in the scenarios. Across seven studies (N = 968), we demonstrate that intuition overrides stipulated outcomes even when participants are explicitly told that an action will result in a particular outcome. Participants instead substitute their own estimates of the probability of outcomes for stipulated outcomes, and these probability estimates in turn influence moral judgments. Our findings demonstrate that intuitive likelihoods are one critical factor in moral judgment, one that is not suspended even in moral dilemmas that explicitly stipulate outcomes. Features thought to underlie moral reasoning, such as intention, may operate, in part, by affecting the intuitive likelihood of outcomes, and, problematically, moral differences between scenarios may be confounded with non‐moral intuitive probabilities.     

All's well that ends well? Outcome bias in pilots during instrument flight rules

The objective of the present study was to examine if the Outcome Bias also occurs in pilots flying under instrument flight rules (IFR). In a scenario-based survey, 60 pilots evaluated weather-related decisions made by hypothetical pilots. Participants rated the decisions as better, less risky, and regarded the probability that they would have made the same decision as higher when they were followed by a positive outcome, than when they were followed by a negative outcome. This effect showed likewise for novice pilots and for experienced pilots. These findings could be relevant for the flight-related decision-making of pilots, which sometimes is affected by the decisions made by third-party pilots. In particular, decisions made by other pilots that have led to positive outcomes might be hastily followed, whereas those that have led to negative outcomes might be hastily rejected.