A Good Bet
The Best-Case Heuristic: Relative Optimism in Relationships, Politics, and a Global Health Pandemic
Hallgeir Sjåstad & Jay Van Bavel
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, forthcoming
Abstract:
In four experiments covering three different life domains, participants made future predictions in what they considered the most realistic scenario, an optimistic best-case scenario, or a pessimistic worst-case scenario (N = 2,900 Americans). Consistent with a best-case heuristic, participants made “realistic” predictions that were much closer to their best-case scenario than to their worst-case scenario. We found the same best-case asymmetry in health-related predictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, for romantic relationships, and a future presidential election. In a fully between-subject design (Experiment 4), realistic and best-case predictions were practically identical, and they were naturally made faster than the worst-case predictions. At least in the current study domains, the findings suggest that people generate “realistic” predictions by leaning toward their best-case scenario and largely ignoring their worst-case scenario. Although political conservatism was correlated with lower covid-related risk perception and lower support of early public-health interventions, the best-case prediction heuristic was ideologically symmetric.
The entrenchment effect: Why people persist with less-preferred behaviors
Alicea Lieberman, On Amir & Ziv Carmon
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, September 2023
Abstract:
This research examines a perplexing but all too common phenomenon in which people actively forego nearly costless opportunities to switch from less-preferred tasks to preferred alternatives. The authors investigate such failures to change and identify a novel underlying cause -- entrenchment, a state of heightened tedious task-set accessibility. A series of experiments demonstrate that a significant subset of participants choose to continue a less-preferred task when given an opportunity to change to a preferred alternative (Studies 1-4a). The more participants repeat a less-preferred task, the more difficult constructing a new task set feels, increasing the proportion who do not switch to their preferred task (Studies 2a-2b). Finally, disrupting task continuity attenuates entrenchment and increases switching (Studies 3-4b). This research contributes to the understanding of why people get stuck in ruts, continuing less-preferred activities when they could easily switch to better alternatives, and provides insights to help manage behavior change.
The invisible hand as an intuitive sociological explanation
Izabelė Jonušaitė & Tomer Ullman
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, January 2024
Abstract:
An invisible-hand explanation explains a situation as the outcome of individual actions, without individuals intending the situation. Invisible-hand explanations have been used for decades to account for all kinds of phenomena, from segregation to traffic norms. But, they have not been studied cognitively and empirically as an intuitive explanation type. We propose and show that US-based adults intuitively prefer invisible-hand over intentional-design explanations. We first validate pairs of explanations as equally likely to cause a social phenomenon (Exp 1). We then show that given that social phenomenon, participants prefer an invisible-hand to an intentional-design explanation, and that the preference for invisible-hand explanations is also negatively linked to conspiratorial beliefs. (Exp 2). We find that when participants are asked to come up with explanations themselves, they are equally fast to come up with invisible-hand or intentional-design explanations (Exp 3), but that both they and other participants prefer the participant-generated invisible hand explanations (Exp 3 and 4). We conclude that US-based adults likely have a prior preference for invisible-hand explanations for social phenomena.
Scientific productivity as a random walk
Sam Zhang et al.
University of Colorado Working Paper, September 2023
Abstract:
The expectation that scientific productivity follows regular patterns over a career underpins many scholarly evaluations, including hiring, promotion and tenure, awards, and grant funding. However, recent studies of individual productivity patterns reveal a puzzle: on the one hand, the average number of papers published per year robustly follows the "canonical trajectory" of a rapid rise to an early peak followed by a graduate decline, but on the other hand, only about 20% of individual researchers' productivity follows this pattern. We resolve this puzzle by modeling scientific productivity as a parameterized random walk, showing that the canonical pattern can be explained as a decrease in the variance in changes to productivity in the early-to-mid career. By empirically characterizing the variable structure of 2,085 productivity trajectories of computer science faculty at 205 PhD-granting institutions, spanning 29,119 publications over 1980--2016, we (i) discover remarkably simple patterns in both early-career and year-to-year changes to productivity, and (ii) show that a random walk model of productivity both reproduces the canonical trajectory in the average productivity and captures much of the diversity of individual-level trajectories. These results highlight the fundamental role of a panoply of contingent factors in shaping individual scientific productivity, opening up new avenues for characterizing how systemic incentives and opportunities can be directed for aggregate effect.
From genes to performance: Dopaminergic modulation of decision making in a stock market simulation
Svea Hogeterp et al.
Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, forthcoming
Abstract:
Since numerous studies have impressively demonstrated the influence of personality traits on financial decision making, the question arises if genetic biological markers might underlie this association. The present study investigated exploratively the relationship between financial decision-making behavior and genetic markers of the dopaminergic system, as dopamine has already proved to be a promising candidate for risk-taking and decision-making behavior. Therefore, a stock market simulation was performed over the course of 3 weeks with N = 133 (60 females, 73 males) participants. All of them were genotyped for the functional gene polymorphisms dopamine transporter variable number of tandem repeats (VNTR) polymorphism (rs28363170), COMTVal158Met (rs4680), DRD₂/ANKK1 Taq1A (rs1800497), and a dopamine D₄ receptor VNTR in exon 3 (DRD₄e3). Genotypes were used to calculate a polygenic score (PGS), which could explain around 21% of the variance in the outcome at the end of the stock market simulation (Capital). Here, sex-dependent effects were evident, showing that the polymorphisms and the PGS only affected the outcome in male participants. This sex difference might have various causes, including different socialization processes, which should be investigated further in future studies. Furthermore, by means of the PGS, we extended a previously published model, which ultimately resulted in a variance explanation of 49% regarding Capital. Herewith, we offer a comprehensive model for the success within the stock market game simulation and provide yet another evidence of the relevance of dopamine for decision-making processes, also within financial contexts.
Scarcity and Intertemporal Choice
Eesha Sharma, Stephanie Tully & Xiang Wang
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
Scarcity often encourages decisions that favor the present over the future. While prevailing theories largely attribute these decisions to myopic, impulsive decision making, five studies find support for an alternative, less prevalent perspective. We introduce the time horizon of threatened needs as an important determinant of scarcity’s effect on intertemporal choice, demonstrating that people’s decisions under scarcity reflect attempts to address threatened needs. Data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (Study 1) and preregistered studies (N = 10,297) show that time horizon moderates intertemporal decisions under scarcity. Study 2 manipulates scarcity perceptions among people engaged to be married, leading to increased preferences for sooner outcomes when wedding dates have shorter time horizons and a significant reversal when wedding dates have longer time horizons. Study 3 demonstrates that time horizon predicts intertemporal choice only when the intertemporal choice can help address threatened needs. Study 4 holds expense salience constant and replicates the moderation by time horizon using a paradigm that manipulates both scarcity and time horizon. Study 5 introduces multiple needs that vary in time horizon and importance, finding that decisions under scarcity reflect consideration of both the importance and temporal proximity of needs. These findings align with the perspective that people facing scarcity attempt to make decisions that are contextually appropriate. This work underscores the importance of understanding contextual variation in experiences of scarcity, suggests that decision making under scarcity is less thoughtless than presumed by the impulsive, myopic account, and offers recommendations for interventions for changing behavior under scarcity.