The loss-bet paradox : Actuaries, accountants, and other numerate people rate numerically inferior gambles as superior

Lade...
Vorschaubild
Dateien
Zu diesem Dokument gibt es keine Dateien.
Datum
2019
Autor:innen
Peters, Ellen
Fennema, Martin Gene
Herausgeber:innen
Kontakt
ISSN der Zeitschrift
Electronic ISSN
ISBN
Bibliografische Daten
Verlag
Schriftenreihe
Auflagebezeichnung
URI (zitierfähiger Link)
DOI (zitierfähiger Link)
ArXiv-ID
Internationale Patentnummer
Angaben zur Forschungsförderung
Projekt
Open Access-Veröffentlichung
Sammlungen
Core Facility der Universität Konstanz
Gesperrt bis
Titel in einer weiteren Sprache
Forschungsvorhaben
Organisationseinheiten
Zeitschriftenheft
Publikationstyp
Zeitschriftenartikel
Publikationsstatus
Published
Erschienen in
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. Wiley-Blackwell. 2019, 32(1), pp. 15-29. ISSN 0894-3257. eISSN 1099-0771. Available under: doi: 10.1002/bdm.2085
Zusammenfassung

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.

Zusammenfassung in einer weiteren Sprache
Fachgebiet (DDC)
150 Psychologie
Schlagwörter
cognitive operations, judgment, individual differences, objective numeracy, preference construction
Konferenz
Rezension
undefined / . - undefined, undefined
Zitieren
ISO 690PETERS, 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. 2019, 32(1), pp. 15-29. ISSN 0894-3257. eISSN 1099-0771. Available under: doi: 10.1002/bdm.2085
BibTex
@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>
Interner Vermerk
xmlui.Submission.submit.DescribeStep.inputForms.label.kops_note_fromSubmitter
Kontakt
URL der Originalveröffentl.
Prüfdatum der URL
Prüfungsdatum der Dissertation
Finanzierungsart
Kommentar zur Publikation
Allianzlizenz
Corresponding Authors der Uni Konstanz vorhanden
Internationale Co-Autor:innen
Universitätsbibliographie
Nein
Begutachtet
Ja
Diese Publikation teilen