Literature DB >> 15161394

Distinction bias: misprediction and mischoice due to joint evaluation.

Christopher K Hsee1, Jiao Zhang.   

Abstract

This research identifies a new source of failure to make accurate affective predictions or to make experientially optimal choices. When people make predictions or choices, they are often in the joint evaluation (JE) mode; when people actually experience an event, they are often in the single evaluation (SE) mode. The "utility function" of an attribute can vary systematically between SE and JE. When people in JE make predictions or choices for events to be experienced in SE, they often resort to their JE preferences rather than their SE preferences and overpredict the difference that different values of an attribute (e.g., different salaries) will make to their happiness in SE. This overprediction is referred to as the distinction bias. The present research also specifies when the distinction bias occurs and when it does not. This research contributes to literatures on experienced utility, affective forecasting, and happiness.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15161394     DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.680

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol        ISSN: 0022-3514


  12 in total

Review 1.  Why the brain talks to itself: sources of error in emotional prediction.

Authors:  Daniel T Gilbert; Timothy D Wilson
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2009-05-12       Impact factor: 6.237

2.  More intense experiences, less intense forecasts: why people overweight probability specifications in affective forecasts.

Authors:  Eva C Buechel; Jiao Zhang; Carey K Morewedge; Joachim Vosgerau
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2013-10-14

Review 3.  Communicating tobacco product harm: Compared to what?

Authors:  Annette R Kaufman; Jerry M Suls; William M P Klein
Journal:  Addict Behav       Date:  2015-06-23       Impact factor: 3.913

4.  When fairness matters less than we expect.

Authors:  Gus Cooney; Daniel T Gilbert; Timothy D Wilson
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-09-16       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Rhesus monkeys lack a consistent peak-end effect.

Authors:  Eric R Xu; Emily J Knight; Jerald D Kralik
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2011-09-20       Impact factor: 2.143

6.  Sure-thing vs. probabilistic charitable giving: Experimental evidence on the role of individual differences in risky and ambiguous charitable decision-making.

Authors:  Philipp Schoenegger; Miguel Costa-Gomes
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-09-22       Impact factor: 3.752

7.  When less is more: evolutionary origins of the affect heuristic.

Authors:  Jerald D Kralik; Eric R Xu; Emily J Knight; Sara A Khan; William J Levine
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-10-03       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Less means more for pigeons but not always.

Authors:  Thomas R Zentall; Jennifer R Laude; Jacob P Case; Carter W Daniels
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2014-12

9.  Good News or Bad News, Which Do You Want First? The Importance of the Sequence and Organization of Information for Financial Decision-Making: A Neuro-Electrical Imaging Study.

Authors:  Wenting Yang; Jianhong Ma; Hezhi Chen; Anton G Maglione; Enrica Modica; Dario Rossi; Giulia Cartocci; Marino Bonaiuto; Fabio Babiloni
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2018-07-27       Impact factor: 3.169

10.  Role of Threat and Coping Appraisal in Protection Motivation for Adoption of Preventive Behavior During COVID-19 Pandemic.

Authors:  Arista Lahiri; Sweety Suman Jha; Arup Chakraborty; Madhumita Dobe; Abhijit Dey
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2021-07-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.