Pro and Con
Losing Sight of Piecemeal Progress: People Lump and Dismiss Improvement Efforts That Fall Short of Categorical Change -- Despite Improving
Ed O'Brien
Psychological Science, August 2022, Pages 1278-1299
Abstract:
Fourteen experiments (N = 10,556 adult participants, including more than 20,000 observed choices across 25 issues) documented how people perceive and respond to relative progress out in the world, revealing a robust "negative-lumping" effect. As problematic entities worked to better their ways, participants shifted to dismiss them if they fell short of categorical reform -- despite distinctions in improvement. This increased dismissal of relative gains as "all the same" was driven by the belief that falling short signals an eschewal of doing the bare minimum and lacking serious intent to change, making these gains seem less deserving of recognition. Critically, participants then "checked out": They underrewarded and underinvested in efforts toward "merely" incremental improvement. Finally, in all experiments, participants lumped together absolute failures but not absolute successes, highlighting a unique blindness to gradations of badness. When attempts to eradicate a problem fail, people might dismiss smaller but critical steps that were and can still be made.
Pivotal voting: The opportunity to tip group decisions skews juries and other voting outcomes
Diag Davenport & Yuji Winet
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 9 August 2022
Abstract:
Many important social and policy decisions are made by small groups of people (e.g., juries, college admissions officers, or corporate boards) with the hope that a collective process will yield better and fairer decisions. In many instances, it is possible for these groups to fail to reach a decision by not garnering a minimum number of votes (e.g., hung juries). Our research finds that pivotal voters vote to avoid such decision failure - voters who can "tip" their group into a punishment decision will be more likely to do so. This effect is distinct from well-known social pressures to simply conform with others or reach unanimity. Using observational data from Louisiana court cases, we find a sharp discontinuity in juries' voting decisions at the threshold between indecision and conviction (Study 1). In a third-party punishment paradigm, pivotal voters were more likely to vote to punish a target than nonpivotal voters, even when holding social information constant (Study 2), and adopted harsher views about the target's deservingness of punishment (Study 3). Using vignettes, we find that pivotal voters are judged to be differentially responsible for the outcomes of their votes-those who "block" the group from reaching a punishment decision are deemed more responsible for the outcome than those who "fall in line" (Study 4). These findings provide insight into how we might improve group decision-making environments to ensure that their outcomes accurately reflect group members' actual beliefs and not the influence of social pressures.
The Magnitude Heuristic: Larger Differences Increase Perceived Causality
David Daniels & Daniella Kupor
Journal of Consumer Research, forthcoming
Abstract:
With the rise of machine learning and "big data", many large yet spurious relationships between variables are discovered, leveraged by marketing communications, and publicized in the media. Thus, consumers are increasingly exposed to many large-magnitude relationships between variables that do not signal causal effects. This exposure may carry a substantial cost. Seven studies demonstrate that the magnitudes of relationships between variables can distort consumers' judgments about whether those relationships reflect causal effects. Specifically, consumers often use a magnitude heuristic: Consumers infer that relationships with larger perceived magnitudes are more likely to reflect causal effects, even when this is not true (and even when relationships' correlations are held constant). In many situations, relying on the magnitude heuristic will distort causality judgments, such as when large-magnitude relationships between variables are spurious, or when normatively extraneous factors (e.g., reference points) distort perceptions of magnitudes. Moreover, magnitude-distorted (mis)perceptions of causality in turn distort consumers' purchase and consumption decisions. Since consumers often encounter spurious relationships with large magnitudes in the health domain and in other consequential domains, the magnitude heuristic is likely to lead to biases in some of consumers' most important decisions.
Makeup calls in organizations: An application of justice to the study of bad calls
Meghan Thornton-Lugo et al.
Journal of Applied Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
In this article, we assess whether actors provide makeup calls as amends for their wrongdoing following bad calls. We examined these effects using organizational justice as a lens. Two archival data sets from Major League Baseball and financial analysts (Study 1 and Study 3), one experimental data set (Study 2), and one mixed-method data set from a field study (Study 4) provided evidence for the positive relationship between bad calls and makeup calls. We also found evidence for a mediating effect of guilt and a first-stage moderating effect of outcome gravity. This article contributes to the literature not only by providing insight into the experience of actors who provide unfair treatment to others but also by exploring the behavioral remedies that actors use to restore justice.
Knowledge overconfidence is associated with anti-consensus views on controversial scientific issues
Nicholas Light et al.
Science Advances, July 2022
Abstract:
Public attitudes that are in opposition to scientific consensus can be disastrous and include rejection of vaccines and opposition to climate change mitigation policies. Five studies examine the interrelationships between opposition to expert consensus on controversial scientific issues, how much people actually know about these issues, and how much they think they know. Across seven critical issues that enjoy substantial scientific consensus, as well as attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines and mitigation measures like mask wearing and social distancing, results indicate that those with the highest levels of opposition have the lowest levels of objective knowledge but the highest levels of subjective knowledge. Implications for scientists, policymakers, and science communicators are discussed.
The effects of communicating scientific uncertainty on trust and decision making in a public health context
Claudia Schneider et al.
Judgment and Decision Making, July 2022, Pages 849-882
Abstract:
Large-scale societal issues such as public health crises highlight the need to communicate scientific information, which is often uncertain, accurately to the public and policy makers. The challenge is to communicate the inherent scientific uncertainty - especially about the underlying quality of the evidence - whilst supporting informed decision making. Little is known about the effects that such scientific uncertainty has on people's judgments of the information. In three experimental studies (total N=6,489), we investigate the influence of scientific uncertainty about the quality of the evidence on people's perceived trustworthiness of the information and decision making. We compare the provision of high, low, and ambiguous quality-of-evidence indicators against providing no such cues. Results show an asymmetric relationship: people react more strongly to cues of low quality of evidence than they do to high quality of evidence compared to no cue. While responses to a cue of high quality of evidence are not significantly different from no cue; a cue of low or uncertain quality of evidence is accompanied by lower perceived trustworthiness and lower use of the information in decision making. Cues of uncertain quality of evidence have a similar effect to those of low quality. These effects do not change with the addition of a reason for the indicated quality level. Our findings shed light on the effects of the communication of scientific uncertainty on judgment and decision making, and provide insights for evidence-based communications and informed decision making for policy makers and the public
Privacy and Information Avoidance: An Experiment on Data-Sharing Preferences
Dan Svirsky
Journal of Legal Studies, January 2022, Pages 63-92
Abstract:
There is a widespread intuition that people are inconsistent about protecting their privacy. This paper presents an experiment that demonstrates that people engage in information avoidance when making privacy decisions. People who are willing to pay nearly an hour's worth of wages for privacy are also willing to give away their data for small monetary bonuses if given a chance to avoid seeing the consequences to privacy. Placebo tests confirm that the same behavior does not occur when people make choices between two monetary bonuses. The paper also presents evidence on how this pattern changed during the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Not Learning from Others
John Conlon et al.
NBER Working Paper, August 2022
Abstract:
We provide evidence of a powerful barrier to social learning: people are much less sensitive to information others discover compared to equally-relevant information they discover themselves. In a series of incentivized lab experiments, we ask participants to guess the color composition of balls in an urn after drawing balls with replacement. Participants' guesses are substantially less sensitive to draws made by another player compared to draws made themselves. This result holds when others' signals must be learned through discussion, when they are perfectly communicated by the experimenter, and even when participants see their teammate drawing balls from the urn with their own eyes. We find a crucial role for taking some action to generate one's `own' information, and rule out distrust, confusion, errors in probabilistic thinking, up-front inattention and imperfect recall as channels.
Sticky me: Self-relevance slows reinforcement learning
Marius Golubickis & Neil Macrae
Cognition, forthcoming
Abstract:
A prominent facet of social-cognitive functioning is that self-relevant information is prioritized in perception, attention, and memory. What is not yet understood, however, is whether similar effects arise during learning. In particular, compared to other people (e.g., best friend) is information about the self acquired more rapidly? To explore this matter, here we used a probabilistic selection task in combination with computational modeling (i.e., Reinforcement Learning Drift Diffusion Model analysis) to establish how self-relevance influences learning under conditions of uncertainty (i.e., choices are based on the perceived likelihood of positive and negative outcomes). Across two experiments, a consistent pattern of effects was observed. First, learning rates for both positive and negative prediction errors were slower for self-relevant compared to friend-relevant associations. Second, self-relevant (vs. friend-relevant) learning was characterized by the exploitation (vs. exploration) of choice selections. That is, in a complex (i.e., probabilistic) decision-making environment, previously rewarded self-related outcomes were selected more often than novel - but potentially riskier - alternatives. The implications of these findings for accounts of self-function are considered.
Spending Windfall ("Found") Time on Hedonic versus Utilitarian Activities
Jaeyeon (Jae) Chung et al.
Journal of Consumer Research, forthcoming
Abstract:
Consumers often gain extra free time unexpectedly. Given the increasing time pressure that consumers experience in their daily lives, it is important to understand how they spend windfall (or unexpected) free time, which we term found time. In a series of five laboratory experiments and naturalistic field studies, we found that consumers spend more of their free time on hedonic activities than on utilitarian activities when they gain the time unexpectedly (i.e., found time), but not when they know about the free time in advance. This pattern occurs consistently regardless of whether consumers gain the time from canceled work-related or leisure activities. In addition, our studies uncovered perceived busyness as a ubiquitous yet unexplored moderator for the windfall gain literature: the inclination to allocate found time to hedonic consumption decreases when consumers perceive themselves to be busy at the moment. We discuss several potential accounts for the effect of unexpectedness on time expenditure, including a perceived fit between the nature of found time (a fun windfall gain) and hedonic consumption, need for justification, and planning.
What determines hindsight bias in written work? One field and three experimental studies in the context of Wikipedia
Marcel Meuer, Steffen Nestler & Aileen Oeberst
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, forthcoming
Abstract:
Hindsight bias not only occurs in individual perception but in written work (e.g., Wikipedia articles) as well. To avoid the possibility that biased written representations of events distort the views of broad audiences, one needs to understand the factors that determine hindsight bias in written work. Therefore, we tested the effect of three potential determinants: the extent to which an event evokes sense-making motivation, the availability of verifiable causal information regarding the event, and the provision of content policies. We conducted one field study examining real Wikipedia articles (N = 40) and three preregistered experimental studies in which participants wrote or edited articles based on different materials (total N = 720). In each experiment, we systematically varied one determinant. Findings provide further - and even more general - support that Wikipedia articles about various events contain hindsight bias. The magnitude of hindsight bias in written work was contingent on the sense-making motivation and the availability of causal information. We did not find support for the effect of content policies. Findings are in line with causal model theory and suggest that some types and topics of written work might be particularly biased by hindsight (e.g., coverage of disasters, research reports, written expert opinions).
Cannabis use does not increase actual creativity but biases evaluations of creativity
Yu Tse Heng, Christopher Barnes & Kai Chi Yam
Journal of Applied Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
In this research, we examine the effects of cannabis use on creativity and evaluations of creativity. Drawing on both the broaden-and-build theory and the affect-as-information model, we propose that cannabis use would facilitate more creativity as well as more favorable evaluations of creativity via cannabis-induced joviality. We tested this prediction in two experiments, wherein participants were randomly assigned to either a cannabis use or cannabis abstinence condition. We find support for our prediction that cannabis use facilitates joviality, which translates to more favorable evaluations of creativity of one's own ideas and others' ideas. However, our prediction that cannabis use facilitates creativity via joviality was not supported. Our findings suggest that cannabis use may positively bias evaluations of creativity but have no impact on creativity. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.