Most research on intertemporal choice has examined choices between smaller, sooner gains and larger, later gains. A much smaller number of papers have examined intertemporal choices for losses. In this article, we explore whether mixed-sign choices with both gains and losses may better correlate with real-world behaviors. In two high-powered studies (pilot: N = 3,200; main study: N = 7,000), participants completed one of four normatively equivalent measures consisting of pure gain, pure loss, or mixed sign (Gain-Now-Loss-Later or Loss-Now-Gain-Later) intertemporal choices. Participants also self-reported a large number of demographic measures and real-world choice behaviors thought to be linked to intertemporal choice. The results indicate that (1) mixed-sign intertemporal choices yield more patient time preferences than pure-gain choices but less patient than pure-loss choices and (2) pure-gain intertemporal choices yield equivalent or superior predictive power across a range of real-world intertemporal choice behaviors.

Research on advice taking has demonstrated a phenomenon of egocentric discounting: people weight their own estimates more than advice from others. However, this research is mostly conducted in highly controlled lab settings with low or no stakes. We used unique data from a game show on Norwegian television to investigate advice taking in a high stakes and highly public setting. Parallel to the standard procedure in judge–advisor systems studies, contestants give numerical estimates for several tasks and solicit advice (another estimate) from three different sources during the game. The average weight of advice was 0.58, indicating that contestants weighted advice more than their own estimates. Of potential predictors of weight of advice, we did not detect associations with the use of intuition (e.g., gut feeling, guessing) and advice source (family, celebrities, average of viewers from hometown), but own estimation success (the proportion of previous rounds won) was associated with less weight of advice. Solicitation of advice was associated with higher stakes. Together with the relatively high weight on advice, this suggests that participants considered the advice valuable. On average, estimates did not improve much after advice taking, and the potential for improvement by averaging estimates and advice was negligible. We discuss different factors that could contribute to these findings, including stakes, solicited versus unsolicited advice, task difficulty, and high public scrutiny. The results suggest that highly controlled lab studies may not give an accurate representation of advice taking in high stakes and highly public settings.

Past research suggested that assimilation (i.e., the tendency to exaggerate the similarity between one’s ideological position and the position of a preferred political object) is stronger than contrast (i.e., the tendency to exaggerate the dissimilarity between one’s ideological position and the position of a non-preferred political object). However, critiques of this research argue that this conclusion is unwarranted because it is biased toward assimilation appearing stronger than contrast. In the current study, we examine the ideological judgments of American presidential candidates between 1972 and 2020 and analyze all available subjects (in contrast to previous studies that relied primarily on data collected in the 1970s and 1980s and analyzed only subjects who actually voted), and show that, in these years, contrast was stronger than assimilation. We also show that during these years, there was very little change in assimilation but a substantial increase in contrast. We attribute this change to increased polarization among the American electorate.

This study examined the sour grapes/sweet lemons rationalization through 2 conditions: ‘attainable’ (sweet lemons) and ‘unattainable’ (sour grapes), reflecting China’s 2019-nCoV vaccination strategy. The aim was to find ways to change people’s beliefs and preferences regarding vaccines by easing their safety concerns and encouraging more willingness to get vaccinated. An online survey was conducted from January 22 to 27, 2021, with 3,123 residents across 30 provinces and municipalities in the Chinese mainland. The direction of belief and preference changed in line with the sour grapes/sweet lemons rationalization. Using hypothetical and real contrasts, we compared those for whom the vaccine was relatively unattainable (‘sour grapes’ condition) with those who could get the vaccine easily (‘sweet lemons’). Whether the vaccine was attainable was determined in the early stage of the vaccine roll-out by membership in a select group of workers that was supposed to be vaccinated to the greatest extent possible, or, by being in the second stage when the vaccine was available to all. The attainable conditions demonstrated higher evaluation in vaccine safety, higher willingness to be vaccinated, and lower willingness to wait and see. Hence, we propose that the manipulation of vaccine attainability, which formed the basis of the application of sour grapes/sweet lemons rationalization, can be utilized as a means to manipulate the choice architecture to nudge individuals to ease vaccine safety concerns, reducing wait-and-see tendencies, and enhancing vaccination willingness. This approach can expedite universal vaccination and its associated benefits in future scenarios resembling the 2019-nCoV vaccine rollout.

What role does reasoning about moral principles play in people’s judgments about what is right or wrong? According to one view, reasoning usually plays little role. People tend to do what suits their self-interests and concoct moral reasons afterward to justify their own behavior. Thus, in this view, people are far more forgiving of their own violations than of others’ violations. According to a contrasting view, principled reasoning generally guides judgments and decisions about our own and others’ actions. This view predicts that people usually can, and do, articulate the principles that guide their moral judgments and decisions. The present research examined a phenomenon at the center of these debates: students’ evaluations of academic cheating. Across three studies, we used structured interviews and online surveys to examine first- and third-party judgments and reasoning about cheating events. Third-party scenarios were derived from students’ own accounts of cheating events and manipulated based on the reasons students provided. Findings supported the view that reasoning is central to evaluations of cheating. Participants articulated reasons consistent with their judgments about their own and others’ actions. The findings advance classic debates about reasoning in morality and exemplify a paradigm that can bring further advances.

Scientists have started to explore whether novel artificial intelligence (AI) tools based on large language models, such as GPT-4, could support the scientific peer review process. We sought to understand (i) whether AI versus human reviewers are able to distinguish between made-up AI-generated and human-written conference abstracts reporting on actual research, and (ii) how the quality assessments by AI versus human reviewers of the reported research correspond to each other. We conducted a large-scale field experiment during a medium-sized scientific conference, relying on 305 human-written and 20 AI-written abstracts that were reviewed either by AI or 217 human reviewers. The results show that human reviewers and GPTZero were better in discerning (AI vs. human) authorship than GPT-4. Regarding quality assessments, there was rather low agreement between both human–human and human–AI reviewer pairs, but AI reviewers were more aligned with human reviewers in classifying the very best abstracts. This indicates that AI could become a prescreening tool for scientific abstracts. The results are discussed with regard to the future development and use of AI tools during the scientific peer review process.

The literature on emotion and risk-taking is large and heterogeneous. Whereas some studies have found that positive emotions increase risk-taking and negative emotions increase risk aversion, others have found just the opposite. In this study, we investigated this question in the context of a risky decision-making task with embedded high-resolution sampling of participants’ subjective emotional valence. Across two large-scale experiments (N = 329 and 524), we consistently found evidence for a negative association between self-reported emotional valence and risk-taking behaviors. That is, more negative subjective affect was associated with increased risk-seeking, and more positive subjective affect was associated with increased risk aversion. This effect was evident both when we compared participants with different levels of mean emotional valence as well as when we considered within-participant emotional fluctuations over the course of the task. Prospect-theoretic computational modeling analyses suggested that both between- and within-participant effects were driven by an effect of emotional valence on the curvature of the subjective utility function (i.e., increased risk tolerance in more negative emotional states), as well as by an effect of within-person emotion fluctuations on loss aversion. We interpret findings in terms of a tendency for participants in negative emotional states to choose high-risk, high-reward options in an attempt to improve their emotional state.

People often predict that they, and others, will be biased by sunk costs—they think that investing in an object or goal increases how much one values or wants it. In this article, we use sunk cost predictions to look at people’s theory of mind and their conceptions of mental life. More specifically, we ask which mental states and motivations are seen as underlying the bias. To investigate this, participants in two preregistered experiments predicted whether different kinds of agents would be biased by sunk costs, and also assessed the agents’ mental abilities. Participants predicted that some kinds of agents (e.g., human adults and children, robots) would show the sunk cost bias and that others would not (e.g., raccoons and human babies). These predictions were strongly related to the participants’ assessments of whether the different kinds of agents are capable of seeing actions as wasteful, but also related to their assessments of the agents’ capacities to feel regret and frustration.

Game riskiness is an index to describe the variance of outcomes of choosing cooperation relative to that of choosing defection in prisoner’s dilemmas (PD). When the variance of cooperation is larger (smaller) than that of defection, the PD is labeled as a more-risky PD (less-risky PD). This article extends the previous work on game riskiness by examining its moderating role on the effect of expectation on cooperation under various PDs. We found across three studies that game riskiness moderated the effect of expectation on cooperation such that the effect of expectation on cooperation was larger in more-risky PDs than in less-risky counterparts. This effect was observed in N-person PD (Study 1), PD presented in both gain and loss domains (Study 2), and PD where expectation was manipulated instead of measured (Study 3). Furthermore, we found that participants cooperated more in PDs presented in the gain domain compared to those presented in the loss domain, and this effect was again moderated by game riskiness. In addition, we illustrated mathematically that game riskiness is related to other established indices of PD, including the index of cooperation, fear index, and greed index. This article identified game riskiness as a robust situational factor that can impact decisions in social dilemmas. It also provided insights into the underlying motivations of cooperation and defection under different expectations and how game riskiness can be utilized in cooperation research.

American and European adults prefer natural products and often pay premiums to purchase natural products. They may do this because they believe natural products are better, either functionally or inherently. We present a measure that assesses belief in the ‘benevolence of nature’ across a range of products and a range of situations, including safety, sensory appeal, and effectiveness. American adults show a substantial belief in the benevolence of nature. This belief is sometimes erroneous, with participants attributing higher quality to some natural products that are in fact inferior to their artificial counterparts. In support of the belief that natural products are inherently better, many participants express a preference for a natural as opposed to an artificial product when both are stipulated to be chemically identical or to have identical effects. An original set of 24 items to measure belief in the benevolence of nature is refined into a more useful 10-item scale, and correlations with related scales are assessed. Belief in the benevolence of nature is not lower in participants who have experienced at least one natural disaster.

Are religious people more generous than non-religious people? If so, are they more generous in general or mainly to members of their religious ingroup (i.e., parochially generous)? Also, do levels of parochial generosity differ between Christians, Muslims, and atheists? This paper examined these questions by using a novel design of the Dictator Game, where participants in multiple rounds decided how much money to keep for themselves and give to three other players, of whom some information is revealed. Three studies (N = 1,719) with a Swedish sample, an American sample, and a sample from Egypt and Lebanon were conducted. We found that religious people were more generous compared to non-religious people when information about players’ religious affiliation was available, but not when it was not available. The results suggest that if religious people are more generous, this mainly occurs when religious information is salient. We also found evidence of parochial generosity among Christians, Muslims, and atheists as all three groups gave more to their religious ingroup than to both of their outgroups. However, Muslims seemed to differ from Christians and atheists by giving more to their ingroup than the other two groups gave to their respective ingroups in the USA and possibly in Sweden.

The term ‘moral wiggle room’ (MWR) is often used to describe features of social situations that reduce the transparency between behaviors and their consequences. Previous research found that MWR decreases the likelihood of prosocial behavior and inferred that prosocial behavior is driven not only by genuine prosocial preferences but also by the desire to appear prosocially. Unfortunately, this postulation has never been specified as a theory. Consequently, studies testing the MWR effect reveal substantial heterogeneity in the understanding of core concepts, their operationalizations, and boundary conditions. To advance the field of MWR research, we remove these ambiguities by providing a verbal proposition-based theory specification. We first outline the original formulation of the MWR effect and its mediating mechanism, and we identify its loopholes. On this basis, we propose, refine, and distinguish between core propositions and auxiliary assumptions as well as relevant concepts and their operationalizations. The result is a fully testable theory of MWR (MWR-T) that includes a sharpened concept of MWR, distinguishes between three underlying psychological mechanisms of the behavioral MWR effect (i.e., anticipated social image damage, perceived social norms, and anticipatory guilt), and takes into account the role of individual differences in susceptibility to MWR (i.e., the joint effect of dispositional other-regarding preferences and social image concerns). Lastly, we relate MWR-T to existing theories and draw a roadmap for future work. With our contribution, we hope to stimulate more rigorous research on MWR and provide an example of the utility of verbal proposition-based theory specification.

Our experience of reasoning is replete with conflict. People phenomenologically vacillate between options when confronted with challenging decisions. Existing experimental designs typically measure a summary of the experience of the conflict experienced throughout the choice process for any individual choice or even between multiple observers for a choice. We propose a new method for measuring vacillations in reasoning during the time-course of individual choices, utilizing them as a fine-grained indicator of cognitive conflict. Our experimental paradigm allows participants to report the alternative they were considering while deliberating. Through 3 experiments, we demonstrate that our measure correlates with existing summary judgments of conflict and confidence in moral and logical reasoning problems. The pattern of deliberation revealed by these vacillations produces new constraints for theoretical models of moral and syllogistic reasoning.

This article introduces a new violation of a law of probability, likelihood neglect bias. The bias occurs when one is (i) aware that some evidence is more likely given one hypothesis rather than another but (ii) that evidence does not cause them to raise their probability for the former hypothesis relative to the latter. The Monty Hall problem illustrates this bias, although the bias is potentially present in other contexts as well. Unlike previous studies, the present study shows that incorrect responses to the problem are attributable to failure to realize the implications of likelihoods (i.e., likelihood neglect) instead of unawareness of what the likelihoods are. Likelihood neglect is also distinguished from other biases which it is occasionally confused with, and a theoretical explanation of likelihood neglect is proposed. Experimental results further indicate that a new approach—the mental simulations approach—showed a large effect in reducing likelihood neglect and increasing correct probabilities when encountering the Monty Hall problem. The approach also increased correct probabilities for a new modification called the ‘new Monty Hall problem’, unlike two prominent alternative approaches to the original Monty Hall problem. The new Monty Hall problem also illustrates that humans can fail to recognize objectively strong evidence for a hypothesis if they neglect likelihoods.

Decades of research seek to understand how people form perceptions of risk by modeling either individual-level psychological processes or broader social and organizational mechanisms. Yet, little formal theoretical work has focused on the interaction of these 2 sets of factors. In this paper, I contribute to closing this gap by modifying a psychologically rich individual model of probabilistic reasoning to account for the transmission and collective emergence of risk perceptions. Using data from 357 individuals, I present experimental evidence in support of my main building assumptions and demonstrate the empirical validity of my model. Incorporating these results into an agent-based setting, I simulate over 1.5 billion social interactions to analyze the emergence of risk perceptions within organizations under different information frictions (i.e., limits on the availability and precision of social information). My results show that by focusing on information quality (rather than availability), groups and organizations can more effectively boost the accuracy of their emergent risk perceptions. This work offers researchers a formal framework to analyze the relationship between psychological and organizational factors in shaping risk perceptions.

Recent meta-analyses suggest that certain drugs act as cognitive enhancers and can increase attentional investment and performance even for healthy adults. The current review examines the potential of behavioral economics enhancers (BEEs) for similarly improving cognitive performance and judgments. Traditionally, behavioral economics theory has adopted a skeptical approach regarding the notion of whether individuals can overcome judgment biases through variables that increase cognitive effort. We focus mostly on the effects of two BEEs: incentivization and losses. Summarizing results from different meta-analyses, we find a small but robust positive effect size for BEEs, with comparable effect sizes to those found in studies of pharmacological cognitive enhancers.

Moral judgments are shaped by socialization and cultural heritage. Understanding how moral considerations vary across the globe requires the systematic development of moral stimuli for use in different cultures and languages. Focusing on Dutch populations, we adapted and validated two recent instruments for examining moral judgments: (1) the Moral Foundations Vignettes (MFVs) and (2) the Socio-Moral Image Database (SMID). We translated all 120 MFVs from English into Dutch and selected 120 images from SMID that primarily display moral, immoral, or neutral content. A total of 586 crowd-workers from the Netherlands provided over 38,460 individual judgments for both stimuli sets on moral and affective dimensions. For both instruments, we find that moral judgments and relationships between the moral foundations and political orientation are similar to those reported in the US, Australia, and Brazil. We provide the validated MFV and SMID images, along with associated rating data, to enable a broader study of morality.

Inclusion of a decoy alternative dominated by a target option, but not its competitor, typically leads to increased choice for the target over the competitor, known as the attraction effect. However, the reverse sometimes occurs, known as the repulsion effect. This research tested factors that moderate the repulsion effect in preferential choice scenarios with numerical attributes. Experiment 1 used a between-subjects design with a small set of consumer products and demonstrated robust repulsion effects that did not depend on the relative similarity of the decoy and target. Experiments 2 and 4 used a more powerful within-subjects design along with an expanded set of products and showed that repulsion effects were generally enhanced when the decoy and target had more similar attributes; however, the moderating effect of decoy–target similarity appeared to be fragile and sensitive to stimulus presentation factors. These findings provided mixed support for the hypothesis that the target is tainted by its proximity to the decoy. Experiments 3 and 5 tested whether the extremity of values on the attribute favoring the target moderates the repulsion effect. The results demonstrated that repulsion is more likely when all the alternatives have extremely high values on the target’s better attribute. Extremity of attribute values on the dimension favoring the target may result in a categorical assessment along that dimension and shift focus to the attribute favoring the competitor as one way to foster the repulsion effect.

We study why suffering a negative economic shock, i.e., a significant loss, may trigger a change in other-regarding behavior. We conjecture that people trade off concern for money with a conditional preference to follow social norms and that suffering a shock makes extrinsic motivation more salient, leading to more norm violation. This hypothesis is grounded on the premise that preferences are norm-dependent. We study this question experimentally: after administering losses on the earnings from a real-effort task, we analyze choices in prosocial and antisocial settings. To derive our predictions, we elicit social norms for each context analyzed in the experiments. We find evidence that shock increases deviations from norms.