Vlaev, Ivo, Chater, Nick and Stewart, N. (Neil). (2008) Seeing is not enough : manipulating choice options causes focusing and preference change in multiattribute risky decision-making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol.21 (No.5). pp. 556-574. ISSN 0894-3257

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

We show that preferences depend on the attributes that can be directly manipulated when people need to integrate multiple sources of information because direct manipulation causes focusing bias. This effect appears even when all relevant information is simultaneously and explicitly presented at the time the decisions are made. Participants decided how much to save, what investment risk to take and observed the future financial consequences in terms of the mean and variability of the expected retirement income. Participants who manipulated only the future income distribution saved more and took less risk. This effect disappears when the risk-related variables are removed. which indicates that task complexity is a mediator of such focusing effects. A more balanced trade-off between the choice attributes was selected when all attributes were manipulated. However, when there is a dichotomy between manipulating versus observing choice attributes, then decisions were based mostly on the manipulated attributes. Copyright (c) 2008 John Wiley & Sons. Ltd.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology H Social Sciences > HG Finance
Divisions:	Faculty of Social Sciences > Warwick Business School > Behavioural Science Faculty of Science > Psychology Faculty of Social Sciences > Warwick Business School
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Corporations -- Finance -- Management, Finance -- Decision making, Business enterprises -- Finance -- Management, Saving and investment, Risk
Journal or Publication Title:	Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
Publisher:	John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
ISSN:	0894-3257
Date:	December 2008
Volume:	Vol.21
Number:	No.5
Number of Pages:	19
Page Range:	pp. 556-574
Identification Number:	10.1002/bdm.601
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Publication Status:	Published
Access rights to Published version:	Restricted or Subscription Access
References:	Armelius, B., & Armelius, K. (1974). The use of redundancy in multiple-cue judgments: Data from a suppressor-variable task. American Journal of Psychology, 87, 385–392. Benartzi, S., & Thaler, R. (2002). How much is investor autonomy worth? Journal of Finance, 57, 1593–1616. Camerer, C. F. (2000). Prospect theory in the wild: Evidence from the field. In D. Kahneman , & A. Tversky (Eds.), Choices, values and frames (pp. 288–300). New York: Cambridge University Press. Davis, D. D. (2006). Rebate subsidies, matching subsidies and isolation effects. Judgment and Decision Making, 1, 13–22. Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103, 650–669. Harris, R. J., & Joyce, M. A. (1980). What’s fair? It depends on how you phrase the question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 165–179. Idson, L. C., Chugh, D., Bereby-Meyer, Y., Moran, S., Grosskopf, B., & Bazerman, M. (2004). Overcoming focusing failures in competitive environments. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17, 159–172. Jones, S. K., Frisch, D., Yurak, T. J.,&Kim, E. (1998). Choices and opportunities: Another effect of framing on decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11, 211–226. Kahneman D. & Tversky , A. (Eds.), (2000). Choices, values, and frames. New York: Cambridge University Press. McCaffery, E. J., & Baron, J. (2004). Framing and taxation: Evaluation of tax policies involving household composition. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25, 679–705. McCaffery, E. J., & Baron, J. (2006). Isolation effects and the neglect of indirect effects of fiscal policies. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 289–302. McCaffery, E. J., & Baron, J. (2003). The Humpty Dumpty blues: Disaggregation bias in the evaluation of tax systems. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91, 230–242. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for information processing. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97. Oliver, Wyman & Company. (2001). The future regulation of UK savings and investment. Research report conducted by Oliver, Wyman & Company and commissioned by the Association of British Insurers. Phelps, R. H., & Shanteau, J. (1978). Livestock judges: How much information can an expert use? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 209–219. Read, D., Loewenstein, G., & Rabin, M. (1999). Choice bracketing. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 171–197. Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., & the PDP Research Group. (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition, Vol. 1 and 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Schkade, D. A., & Kahneman, D. (1998). Does living in California make people happy? A focusing illusion in judgments of life satisfaction. Psychological Science, 9, 340–346. Shepard, R. N. (1967). On subjectively optimum selections among multi-attribute alternatives. In W. Edwards , & A. Tversky (Eds.), Decision making (pp. 257–283). Baltimore: Penguin Books. Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man. New York: Wiley. Thaler, R. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4, 199–214. Thaler, R. (1999). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 183–206. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131. Vlaev, I., Chater, N., & Stewart, N. (2008). Dimensionality of risk perception: Factors affecting consumer understanding and evaluation of financial risk. Journal of Behavioral Finance (in press). Wilson, T. D., Wheatley, T., Meyers, J. M., Gilbert, D. T., & Axsom, D. (2000). Focalism: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 821–836.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/28917

Data sourced from Thomson Reuters' Web of Knowledge

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item