Outcomes Affect Evaluations of Decision Quality: Replication and Extensions of Baron and Hershey’s (1988) Outcome Bias Experiment 1

Author:

Aiyer SrirajORCID,Kam Hoi Ching,Ng Ka Yuk,Young Nathaniel A.,Shi JiaxinORCID,Feldman GiladORCID

Abstract

Outcome bias is the phenomenon whereby decisions which resulted in successful outcomes were rated more favorably than when the same decisions resulted in failures. We conducted a pre-registered replication and extension of Experiment 1 (original’s: N = 20) from the classic Baron and Hershey (1988) with an online Amazon Mechanical Turk sample using CloudResearch (N = 692), switching from a within-participants design in the original experiment to a between-participants design. We tested outcome bias by measuring participants’ ratings of the quality of decisions in medical scenarios. For the replication (pre-registered) part of the study, we successfully replicated signal and direction of the outcome bias (original: dpaired = 0.21 – 0.53; replication: dindependent = 0.77 [0.62, 0.93] to 1.1 [0.94, 1.26]), and even for participants who stated that outcomes should not be taken into consideration when evaluating decisions (d = 0.64 [0.21, 1.08]). For the extension part of the study, we found differences, dependent on outcome types, in evaluations of the perceived importance of considering the outcome, the perceived responsibility of decision-makers, and the perception that others would act similarly given the choice by outcome type. Materials, data, and code are available on Open Science Framework (OSF): https://osf.io/knjhu/.

Publisher

Ubiquity Press, Ltd.

Reference29 articles.

1. The base-rate fallacy in probability judgments;Acta Psychologica,1980

2. Outcome bias in decision evaluation;Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1988

3. Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting;JAMA,1998

4. Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: A randomized controlled trial;Archives of Internal Medicine,2010

5. Do professional norms in the medical industry favor outcome bias?;Managerial and Decision Economics,2021

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