Literature DB >> 3367280

Outcome bias in decision evaluation.

J Baron1, J C Hershey.   

Abstract

In 5 studies, undergraduate subjects were given descriptions and outcomes of decisions made by others under conditions of uncertainty. Decisions concerned either medical matters or monetary gambles. Subjects rated the quality of thinking of the decisions, the competence of the decision maker, or their willingness to let the decision maker decide on their behalf. Subjects understood that they had all relevant information available to the decision maker. Subjects rated the thinking as better, rated the decision maker as more competent, or indicated greater willingness to yield the decision when the outcome was favorable than when it was unfavorable. In monetary gambles, subjects rated the thinking as better when the outcome of the option not chosen turned out poorly than when it turned out well. Although subjects who were asked felt that they should not consider outcomes in making these evaluations, they did so. This effect of outcome knowledge on evaluation may be explained partly in terms of its effect on the salience of arguments for each side of the choice. Implications for the theory of rationality and for practical situations are discussed.

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3367280     DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.54.4.569

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


  35 in total

Review 1.  Counterfactual thinking and decision making.

Authors:  N Roese
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1999-12

2.  Proportionate responses to life events influence clinicians' judgments of psychological abnormality.

Authors:  Nancy S Kim; Daniel J Paulus; Jeffrey S Gonzalez; Danielle Khalife
Journal:  Psychol Assess       Date:  2011-12-05

3.  Hindsight bias, outcome knowledge and adaptive learning.

Authors:  K Henriksen; H Kaplan
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2003-12

Review 4.  The promise of empirical research in the study of informed consent theory and practice.

Authors:  Laura A Siminoff; Marie Caputo; Christopher Burant
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  2004-03

5.  Top performers are not the most impressive when extreme performance indicates unreliability.

Authors:  Jerker Denrell; Chengwei Liu
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Predicting outcomes: Sports and stocks.

Authors:  G Wood
Journal:  J Gambl Stud       Date:  1992-06

7.  Deliberation before determination: the definition and evaluation of good decision making.

Authors:  Glyn Elwyn; Talya Miron-Shatz
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2009-09-09       Impact factor: 3.377

8.  The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks.

Authors:  Maggie E Toplak; Richard F West; Keith E Stanovich
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2011-10

9.  Higher incentives can impair performance: neural evidence on reinforcement and rationality.

Authors:  Anja Achtziger; Carlos Alós-Ferrer; Sabine Hügelschäfer; Marco Steinhauser
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2015-03-29       Impact factor: 3.436

10.  Communicating scientific uncertainty.

Authors:  Baruch Fischhoff; Alex L Davis
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-09-15       Impact factor: 11.205

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.