Does betrayal aversion really guide trust decisions towards strangers?

Trust is a double-edged sword. When warranted, it leads to positive and rewarding interactions. When not, it leads to disappointment and anger. Therefore, it has been argued that people will display “betrayal aversion” in trust situations (i.e., avoid trusting to avoid betrayal). Yet, people also feel tense and uneasy when they signal distrust to another person and thus show signs of “principled trustfulness” (i.e., choosing to trust others although being skeptical of their trustworthiness). These two theoretical orientations imply directly opposite influences on trust behavior. Thus, we conducted two laboratory studies (with a total of 841 participants) with binary trust games (implying a risk of being betrayed) and extended lottery games (implying no such risk). In both studies, we varied the payoff structures of both games. Further, we made sure that the average perceived likelihood of winning or losing money when choosing the risky option was identical in both games, as was the distribution of these likelihoods. Neither study showed any sign of betrayal aversion. Rather, participants were more willing to risk their money in the trust game than they were to invest their money in a lottery, supporting the principled trustfulness view. We discuss possible explanations why, unlike previous studies, we did not find any indication of betrayal aversion.     

The Aggregated Extremes Effect: Not All Routes to “Balanced” Bundles are Equally Appealing

Prior research establishes that consumers are averse to extreme options, but what does a “moderate” option look like in the context of choices among bundles of items, such as investment portfolios or product assortment packs? We propose that for bundles, two paths to creating risk and reward balance exist: a “bundle‐of‐pure‐moderation” with all moderate‐risk–moderate‐reward (moderate RR) components and a “bundle‐of‐extremes,” composed of equal numbers of extreme high‐risk–high‐reward (high RR) and low‐risk–low‐reward (low RR) components. We show that consumers have stronger preference for the balanced bundle when composed of a bundle‐of‐extremes rather than a bundle‐of‐pure‐moderation, even when equated on expected value, a phenomenon we term “the aggregated extremes effect.” This effect occurs across different choice set configurations and across multiple domains. Additionally, this effect is eliminated among consumers who view the high RR and low RR components as incompatible, as this undermines the perceived attractiveness of the bundle‐of‐extremes. Finally, this effect is also eliminated by exposing consumers to a depiction of potential outcomes, such that consumers can better perceive the risk reduction upside of a bundle‐of‐pure‐moderation.     

味觉厌恶性条件反射建立后脑内c-Fos的表达

以新异味觉刺激糖精水的摄入为条件刺激,以腹腔注射环磷酰胺(CY,免疫抑制剂)或氯化锂(LiCl)为非条件刺激,分别使大鼠建立味觉厌恶性条件反射.在条件刺激日,糖精水在学习组大鼠下列脑区中诱发出密集的Fos表达下丘脑、杏仁核、边缘皮质等,而非学习组在这些区域中却没有或只有少量表达.另外,在丘脑前背侧核、扣带回、下丘脑外侧核、穹隆下器、压部后颗粒皮质、视上核,CY组的Fos表达明显多于LiCl组;而在伏核、杏仁基底外侧核、腹外侧隔核,LiCl组的Fos表达明显多于CY组,这种差异可能是两种药物的不同药理性质所致.     

Enhancement of food aversion by exposure to a poisoned conspecific in Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus)

Two experiments were conducted to determine whether exposure to a poisoned conspecific enhances prior food aversion in rats. In Experiment 1, subjects were serially exposed to two foods, cocoa‐flavored and cinnamon‐flavored ones, and were then poisoned 1 h later. On the next day, they were exposed to a poisoned conspecific that had eaten a cocoa‐flavored food. On the subsequent choice test, subjects had an enhanced aversion to cocoa‐flavored food. The result was replicated in Experiment 2, in which a cinnamon‐flavored food was assigned as a target. The results are discussed in relation to previous findings.     

民众收入不公平感的机制与对策——基于参照依赖和损失规避双视角

近年来,贫富差距的不断加大已引起民众较为强烈的收入不公平感,而导致收入不公平感产生的一个主要原因是人们对自己收入所得不如他人的相对比较。本项目基于预期理论价值函数的参照依赖和损失规避双视角,对当前民众收入不公平感的形成机制与管理对策进行系列实证研究;采用心理测量、实验室实验和干预研究相结合的方法,并借助神经电生理的ERP技术和心理生理学的多导生理记录仪(SCR),以检验民众收入不公平感的自我-他人参照、单参照点-多参照点比较的整合性参照依赖框架;探索损失规避对多得不均等和少得不均等的非对称不公平感的根源性作用和神经生理机制;选取社区居民,操纵参照对象、参照点和得失框架,进行多轮次和多变量的干预研究,以探索减少民众收入不公平感的应对策略,并据此提出切实有效的管理对策。     

Risk Orientation,Risk Exposure,and Policy Opinions: The Case of Free Trade

This research offers a general framework for thinking about how individual disposition towards risk influences public policy opinions. Affinity for or aversion to risk is, in part, a stable personality characteristic that interacts with risk and reward messages in complex policy debates. We examine the implications of this for public opinions about free trade with extensions to immigration policy. We argue and find that opinions about policy depend jointly upon one's exposure to potential gains or losses and one's risk orientation. The findings have implications for crafting and framing public policies because they highlight how individual characteristics are likely to shape the public response to policy proposals. Our findings suggest that there may be limits, in the aggregate, to the degree to which elites can alter the level of support for policies through framing or through offering risk‐mitigating policy provisions.     

“The ball don't lie”: How inequity aversion can undermine performance

Previous research has found that people are often averse to inequity, even when it works to their own advantage. The present research extends previous demonstrations of inequity aversion by examining how it plays out in a real-world context in which self-interest motivations and competitive pressures are substantial. National Basketball Association games were examined and instances of obviously incorrect foul calls were identified. Players were found to make a substantially lower percentage of the foul shots they were awarded as a result of incorrect calls, indicating that they were troubled by the inequity. This drop-off in performance was only observed when the shooter's team was ahead, highlighting the trade-off between the two conflicting motives of self-interest (the desire to win) and inequity aversion.     

Power and loss aversion

Four experiments tested the prediction that power reduces loss aversion by increasing the anticipated value of gains and shrinking the negative anticipated value of losses. Experiment 1 provided initial support for the prediction that those in power are less loss averse by replicating a classic paradigm of loss aversion in riskless choice and demonstrating moderation by power. Experiments 2 and 3 expanded on this finding by breaking apart the components of loss aversion to determine how power may reduce it: via gains, losses, or both. Across two scenarios and two different measures of anticipated value, power reduced the anticipated threat associated with a loss. However, the prediction that power increases the anticipated value of gains was not supported. Finally, Experiment 4 replicated the results of Experiments 2 and 3 in the context of a choice with real consequences for the participants. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

The influence of involvement on the endowment effect: The moveable value function

The endowment effect is based on the loss aversion built into Prospect Theory's asymmetric value function. This paper posits that the level of consumer involvement with a decision is a moderator of the endowment effect. It is proposed that high involvement increases the slope differential between the loss and gain regions of the value function, enhancing loss aversion. The research further posits that higher involvement is accompanied by higher arousal and cognitive processing which produces stronger negativity in thoughts. The argument for these effects is discussed in the context of evolutionary theory. We conclude that consumers are more loss averse in high versus low involvement conditions.