The Library

How incidental values from the environment affect decisions about money, risk, and delay

Tools

Ungemach, Christoph, Stewart, Neil, 1974- and Reimers, Stian. (2011) How incidental values from the environment affect decisions about money, risk, and delay. Psychological Science, Vol.22 (No.2). pp. 253-260. ISSN 0956-7976

Preview

PDF
WRAP_Stewart_250311-ungemach_stewart_reimers_2011.pdf - Draft Version - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (200Kb)

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797610396225

Abstract

How different are £0.50 and £1.50, or "a small chance" and "a good chance", or "three months" and "nine months"? Our experiments show that people behave as if these differences alter after incidental everyday experiences. Preference for a £1.50 lottery rather than a £0.50 lottery was stronger after exposure to intermediate supermarket prices. Preference for "a good chance" of winning rather than "a small chance" was stronger after predicting intermediate probabilities of rain. Preference for consumption in "three month" rather than "nine months" was stronger after planning for an intermediate birthday. These fluctuations offer a direct challenge to economic accounts which translate monies, risks, and delays into subjective equivalents by stable functions. The decision by sampling model, in which subjective values are rank positions constructed from comparisons with samples of monies, probabilities, or delays, predicts these effects and indicates a primary role for sampling in decision making.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology H Social Sciences > HB Economic Theory
Divisions:	Faculty of Science > Psychology
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Economics -- Psychological aspects, Money -- Decision making -- Testing, Risk -- Decision making -- Testing, Time -- Decision making -- Testing
Journal or Publication Title:	Psychological Science
Publisher:	Sage
ISSN:	0956-7976
Date:	February 2011
Volume:	Vol.22
Number:	No.2
Page Range:	pp. 253-260
Identification Number:	10.1177/0956797610396225
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Access rights to Published version:	Restricted or Subscription Access
Funder:	Economic and Social Research Council (Great Britain) (ESRC)
Grant number:	RES-000-22-3339 (ESRC), RES-062-23-0952 (ESRC)
References:	Birnbaum, M. H. (1992). Violations of monotonicity and contextual effects in choice-based certainty equivalents. Psychological Science, 3, 310−314 Brown, G. D. A., Gardner, J., Oswald, A. J., & Qian, J. (2008). Does wage rank affect employees' well-being? Industrial Relations, 47, 355−389. Budescu, D. V., & Wallsten, T. S. (1990). Dyadic decisions with verbal and numerical probabilities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 240−263. Budescu, D. V., & Wallsten, T. S. (1995). Processing Linguistic Probabilities: General Principles and Empirical Evidence. In J. R. Busemeyer, R. Hastie and L. Medin (Eds.). Decision making from the perspective of cognitive psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 275−318. Budescu, D. V., Weinberg, S., & Wallsten, T. S. (1988). Decisions based on numerically and verbally expressed uncertainties. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 281−294. Clark, V. A., Ruffin, C. L., Hill, D. J., & Beamen, A. L. (1992). Ratings of orally presented verbal expressions of probability by a heterogeneous sample. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 638–656. Erev, I., & Cohen, B. L. (1990). Verbal versus numerical probabilities: Efficiency, biases, and the preference paradox. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 1–18. Hakel, M. D. (1969). How often is often? American Psychologist, 23, 533−534. Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 90−98. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263−291. Laming, D. R. J. (1997). The measurement of sensation. London: Oxford University Press. Lichtenstein, S., & Newman, J. R. (1967). Empirical scaling of common verbal phrases associated with numerical probabilities. Psychonomic Science, 9, 563–564. Olivola, C. Y., & Sagara, N. (2009). Distributions of observed death tolls govern sensitivity to human fatalities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 106, 22151–22156. Parducci, A. (1965). Category judgment: A range-frequency model. Psychological Review, 72, 407−418. Parducci, A. (1995). Happiness, pleasure and judgment: The contextual theory and its applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Payne, J.W., Bettman, J.R. & Johnson, E.J. (1992). Behavioral decision research: A constructive processing perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 87−131. Payne, J.W., Bettman, J.R. & Johnson, E.J. (1993). The Adaptive Decision Maker. New York: Cambridge University Press. Reagan, R. T., Mosteller, F., & Youtz, C. (1989). Quantitative meanings of verbal probability expressions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 433–442. Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (1995). Fuzzy-trace theory: An interim synthesis. Learning and Individual Differences, 7, 1–75. Roe, R. M., Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (2001). Multi-alternative decision field theory: A dynamic connectionist model of decision making. Psychological Review, 108, 370−392. Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1982). The Expected Utility Model: Its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. Journal of Economic Literature, 20, 529−563. Scholten, M., & Read, D. (2006). Discounting By Intervals: A Generalized Model of Intertemporal Choice. Management Science, 52, 1426−1438. Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158−174. Slovic, P. (1995). The construction of preference. American Psychologist, 50, 354−371. Starmer, C. (2000). Developments in non-expected utility theory: The hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of Economic Literature, 38, 332−382. Stewart, N. (2009). Decision by sampling: The role of the decision environment in risky choice. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1041−1062. Stewart, N., Brown, G. D. A., & Chater, N. (2005). Absolute identification by relative judgment. Psychological Review, 112, 881-911. Stewart, N., Chater, N., & Brown, G. D. A. (2006). Decision by sampling. Cognitive Psychology, 53, 1−26. Stewart, N., Chater, N., Stott, H. P., & Reimers, S. (2003). Prospect relativity: How choice options influence decision under risk. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 23−46. Stewart, N., Reimers, S., & Harris, A. J. L. (2010). Abandon revealed utility, probability weighting, and temporal discounting functions. Unpublished Manuscript. Stewart, N., & Simpson, K. (2008). A decision-by-sampling account of decision under risk. In N. Chater & Oaksford, M. (Eds.), The probabilistic mind: Prospects for Bayesian cognitive science (pp. 261-276). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Tversky, A. (1972): Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79, 281−299. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297−323. Usher, M., & McClelland, J. L. (2004). Loss aversion and inhibition in dynamical models of multialternative choice. Psychological Review, 111, 757−769. Weber, E. U., & Johnson, E. J. (2006). Constructing preferences from memory. In P. Slovic & S. Lichtenstein (Eds.), The construction of preference (pp. 397- 410). New York: Cambridge University Press. Wedell, D. H. (1991). Distinguishing among models of contextually induced preference reversals. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 17, 767−778. Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Blankenship, K. L., & Detweiler-Bedell, B. (2010). Elaboration and numerical anchoring: Implications of attitude theories for consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 5−16. Zauberman, G., Kim, B. K., Malkoc, S. A., & Bettman, J. R. (2009). Discounting time and time discounting: Subjective time perception and intertemporal preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 543−556. Zimmer, A. C. (1983). Verbal vs. numerical processing of subjective probabilities. In R. W. Scholz (Ed.), Decision making under uncertainty (pp. 159−182). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/4470