The loss-bet paradox : Actuaries, accountants, and other numerate people rate numerically inferior gambles as superior
The loss-bet paradox : Actuaries, accountants, and other numerate people rate numerically inferior gambles as superior
No Thumbnail Available
Files
There are no files associated with this item.
Date
2019
Authors
Editors
Journal ISSN
Electronic ISSN
ISBN
Bibliographical data
Publisher
Series
DOI (citable link)
International patent number
Link to the license
EU project number
Project
Open Access publication
Collections
Title in another language
Publication type
Journal article
Publication status
Published
Published in
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making ; 32 (2019), 1. - pp. 15-29. - Wiley-Blackwell. - ISSN 0894-3257. - eISSN 1099-0771
Abstract
Psychologists have convincingly demonstrated that preferences are not always stable and, instead, are often "constructed" based on information available in the judgment or decision context. In 4 studies with experts (accountants and actuaries in Studies 1 and 2, respectively) and a diverse lay population (Studies 3 and 4), the evidence was consistent with the highly numerate being more likely than the less numerate to construct their preferences by rating a numerically inferior bet as superior (i.e., the bets effect). Thus, the effect generalizes beyond a college student sample, and preference construction differs by numeracy. Contrary to prior thinking about preference construction, however, high expertise and high ability (rather than low) consistently related to the paradoxical phenomenon. Results across studies including Study 3's experimental modifications of the task supported the hypothesized number comparison process (and not a lack of expertise with monetary outcomes and probabilities or numeracy-related differences in attention to numbers) as the effect's underlying cause. The bets effect was not attenuated by Study 4's instructions to think about what would be purchased with bet winnings. Task results combined with free-response coding supported the notion that highly numerate participants have a systematic and persistent inclination for doing simple and complex number operations that drive their judgments (even after controlling for nonnumeric intelligence). Implications for 3 types of dual-process theories are discussed. The results were inconsistent with default-interventionist theories, consistent or unclear with respect to fuzzy trace theory, and consistent with interactive theories.
Summary in another language
Subject (DDC)
150 Psychology
Keywords
cognitive operations, judgment, individual differences, objective numeracy, preference construction
Conference
Review
undefined / . - undefined, undefined. - (undefined; undefined)
Cite This
ISO 690
PETERS, Ellen, Martin Gene FENNEMA, Kevin Erik TIEDE, 2019. The loss-bet paradox : Actuaries, accountants, and other numerate people rate numerically inferior gambles as superior. In: Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. Wiley-Blackwell. 32(1), pp. 15-29. ISSN 0894-3257. eISSN 1099-0771. Available under: doi: 10.1002/bdm.2085BibTex
@article{Peters2019-01lossb-53782, year={2019}, doi={10.1002/bdm.2085}, title={The loss-bet paradox : Actuaries, accountants, and other numerate people rate numerically inferior gambles as superior}, number={1}, volume={32}, issn={0894-3257}, journal={Journal of Behavioral Decision Making}, pages={15--29}, author={Peters, Ellen and Fennema, Martin Gene and Tiede, Kevin Erik} }
RDF
<rdf:RDF xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/" xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#" xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/53782"> <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">Psychologists have convincingly demonstrated that preferences are not always stable and, instead, are often "constructed" based on information available in the judgment or decision context. In 4 studies with experts (accountants and actuaries in Studies 1 and 2, respectively) and a diverse lay population (Studies 3 and 4), the evidence was consistent with the highly numerate being more likely than the less numerate to construct their preferences by rating a numerically inferior bet as superior (i.e., the bets effect). Thus, the effect generalizes beyond a college student sample, and preference construction differs by numeracy. Contrary to prior thinking about preference construction, however, high expertise and high ability (rather than low) consistently related to the paradoxical phenomenon. Results across studies including Study 3's experimental modifications of the task supported the hypothesized number comparison process (and not a lack of expertise with monetary outcomes and probabilities or numeracy-related differences in attention to numbers) as the effect's underlying cause. The bets effect was not attenuated by Study 4's instructions to think about what would be purchased with bet winnings. Task results combined with free-response coding supported the notion that highly numerate participants have a systematic and persistent inclination for doing simple and complex number operations that drive their judgments (even after controlling for nonnumeric intelligence). Implications for 3 types of dual-process theories are discussed. The results were inconsistent with default-interventionist theories, consistent or unclear with respect to fuzzy trace theory, and consistent with interactive theories.</dcterms:abstract> <dc:contributor>Tiede, Kevin Erik</dc:contributor> <bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/53782"/> <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/> <dc:rights>terms-of-use</dc:rights> <dcterms:title>The loss-bet paradox : Actuaries, accountants, and other numerate people rate numerically inferior gambles as superior</dcterms:title> <dc:creator>Peters, Ellen</dc:creator> <dc:creator>Tiede, Kevin Erik</dc:creator> <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/> <dc:language>eng</dc:language> <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2021-05-28T07:23:04Z</dc:date> <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/43"/> <dc:contributor>Fennema, Martin Gene</dc:contributor> <dcterms:issued>2019-01</dcterms:issued> <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/43"/> <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2021-05-28T07:23:04Z</dcterms:available> <dc:creator>Fennema, Martin Gene</dc:creator> <dc:contributor>Peters, Ellen</dc:contributor> <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/"/> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF>
Internal note
xmlui.Submission.submit.DescribeStep.inputForms.label.kops_note_fromSubmitter
Examination date of dissertation
Method of financing
Comment on publication
Alliance license
Corresponding Authors der Uni Konstanz vorhanden
International Co-Authors
Bibliography of Konstanz
No
Refereed
Yes