The Certainty Effect for Gains and Losses Emerges in Joint Evaluation but Not Always in Separate Evaluation

Author:

Pittarello Andrea1,Rubaltelli Enrico2

Affiliation:

1. Hofstra University, New York

2. University of Padova

Abstract

Abstract Six studies investigated people's attitudes toward uncertainty. Participants rated the attractiveness of pairs of gambles in either a gain or a loss frame. We varied the level of uncertainty, the monetary outcomes, and the evaluation mode of the gambles (i.e., joint versus separate evaluation). Experiments 1a and 1b compared a sure gain (loss) to a risky gain (loss), with both gambles having identical expected value. Experiments 2a and 2b included an almost sure (i.e., 98%) gain (loss) and risky gain (loss). When gambles entailed gains, a risky gamble became less attractive when evaluated in joint than in separate evaluation. The opposite pattern emerged when gambles entailed losses. The difference between a risky and a sure (or almost sure) gamble was weaker (or eliminated) in separate evaluation. Experiments 3a and 3b presented a risky gamble alone or with other gambles with varying probability and outcomes to be gained or lost. When gambles entailed gains (losses), a risky gamble became less (more) attractive and was chosen less (more) frequently when paired with gambles offering a higher probability of gaining (losing) smaller amounts. Overall, affective reactions and preferences for uncertain gambles depend on the decision context, and the certainty effect can disappear in separate evaluation.

Publisher

University of Illinois Press

Subject

Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Developmental and Educational Psychology,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Reference45 articles.

1. The affect heuristic and the attractiveness of simple gambles;Bateman;Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,2007

2. Bad is stronger than good;Baumeister;Review of General Psychology,2001

3. Explaining how preferences change across joint versus separate evaluation;Bazerman;Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,1999

4. When performance trumps gender bias: Joint vs. separate evaluation;Bohnet;Management Science,2016

5. Comparative ignorance and the Ellsberg Paradox;Chow;Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,2001

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3