This research investigates a particular type of preference reversal (PR), existing between joint evaluation, where two stimulus options are evaluated side by side simultaneously, and separate evaluation, where these options are evaluated separately. I first examine how this PR differs from other types of PRs and review studies demonstrating this PR. I then propose an explanation, called the evaluability hypothesis,and report experiments that tested this hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, PRs between joint and separate evaluations occur because one of the attributes involved in the options is hard to evaluate independently and another attribute is relatively easy to evaluate independently. I conclude by discussing prescriptive implications of this research.
2020년 코로나 이후 군대에 가려는 미국 사람이 급격하게 감소했습니다. 미군은 더 많은 모병을 위해, 최대 5만 달러의 특별 상여금을 지급하거나, 특정 기술을 보유한 신병이 6년 복무를 계약할 경우 수급 자격을 주는 혜택을 내놓았습니다. 하지만 경제적인 유인책이 큰 효과를 가져오지 못했습니다. 대신, 모집 인원을 늘리는 답은 영화에 있었습니다…
이 사례는 공감격차 (hot-cold empathy gap) 이론을 설명해줍니다. 인간은일반적으로 (차갑고) 이성적이지만, 경험하는 순간에는 (뜨겁고) 동물이 됩니다. 즉, 무언가 경험하는 순간에는, 거부할 수 없는 내장에서 올라오는 요소 (visceral state) 에 지배당합니다. 이러한 요소에는 고통, 성적 충동, 목마름, 배고픔, 졸림, 호기심, 부끄러움, 두려움, 화남 등이 포함됩니다…
Understanding discrepancies between behavior and perceived self-interest has been one of the major, but largely untackled, theoretical challenges confronting decision theory from its infancy to the present. People often act against their self-interest in full knowledge that they are doing so; they experience a feeling of being “out of control.” This paper attributes this phenomenon to the operation of “visceral factors,” which include drive states such as hunger, thirst and sexual desire, moods and emotions, physical pain, and craving for a drug one is addicted to. The defining characteristics of visceral factors are, first, a direct hedonic impact (which is usually negative), and second, an effect on the relative desirability of different goods and actions. The largely aversive experience of hunger, for example, affects the desirability of eating, but also of other activities such as sex. Likewise, fear and pain are both aversive, and both increase the desirability of withdrawal behaviors. The visceral factor perspective has two central premises: First, immediately experienced visceral factors have a disproportionate effect on behavior and tend to “crowd out” virtually all goals other than that of mitigating the visceral factor. Second, people underweigh, or even ignore, visceral factors that they will experience in the future, have experienced in the past, or that are experienced by other people. The paper details these two assumptions, then shows how they can help to explain a wide range of phenomena: impulsivity and self-control, drug addiction, various anomalies concerning sexual behavior, the effect of vividness on decision making, and certain phenomena relating to motivation and action.
“네, 선풍기를 오래 쐬면 머리가 아파서 여러 브랜드와 여러 가격대의 선풍기를 테스트 하고 있었는데, 자연풍을 경험하게 해준다는 선풍기를 발견했어요. 가격이 55만원으로 스탠드형 선풍기 평균 가격보다 10배 가까이 비쌌습니다. 주변 사람들은 실외기가 포함된 에어컨이 50만원인데 선풍기 회사에서 사기를 친거 아니냐고 말했지만, 저는 머리가 아프지 않은 바람을 경험한다면 55만원은 투자할 수 있다고 생각했어요.”
The durability bias, the tendency to overpredict the duration of affective reactions to future events, may be due in part to focalism, whereby people focus too much on the event in question and not enough on the consequences of other future events. If so, asking people to think about other future activities should reduce the durability bias. In Studies 1–3, college football fans were less likely to overpredict how long the outcome of a football game would influence their happiness if they first thought about how much time they would spend on other future activities. Studies 4 and 5 ruled out alternative explanations and found evidence for a distraction interpretation, that people who think about future events moderate their forecasts because they believe that these events will reduce thinking about the focal event. The authors discuss the implications of focalism for other literatures, such as the planning fallacy.
Large samples of students in the Midwest and in Southern California rated satisfaction with life overall as well as with various aspects of life, for either themselves or someone similar to themselves in one of the two regions. Self-reported overall life satisfaction was the same in both regions, but participants who rated a similar other expected Californians to be more satisfied than Midwesterners. Climate-related aspects were rated as more important for someone living in another region than for someone in one’s own region. Mediation analyses showed that satisfaction with climate and with cultural opportunities accounted for the higher overall life satisfaction predicted for Californians. Judgments of life satisfaction in a different location are susceptible to a focusing illusion: Easily observed and distinctive differences between locations are given more weight in such judgments than they will have in reality.
“10여년 전 문을 연 프리미엄 식료품 판매 매장에서 파스타를 사다가, 반년 후 동일한 제품을 싸게 파는 일반 매장을 발견해서 그곳에서 구매하기 시작했어요. 그런데 제 아내는 가격이 더 비싸더라도 프리미엄 매장에서 사자고 제안했어요. 동일한 제품에 돈을 더 내려는 비합리적인 이유를 처음에는 이해할 수 없었어요.”
Patients’ memories of painfu lmedical procedures may influence their decisions about future treatments, yet memories are imperfect and susceptible to bias. We recorded in real-time the intensity of pain experienced by patients undergoing colonoscopy (n = 154) and lithotripsy (n = 133). We subsequently examined patients’ retrospective evaluations of the total pain of the procedure, and related these evaluations to the real-time recording obtained during the experience. We found that individuals varied substantially in the total amount of pain they remembered. Patients’ judgments of total pain were strongly correlated with the peak intensityof pain (P < 0.005) and with the intensity of pain recorded during the last 3 min of the procedure (P < 0.005). Despite substantial variation in the duration of the experience, lengthy procedures were not remembered as particularly aversive. We suggest that patients’ memories of painful medical procedures largely reflect the intensity of pain at the worst part and at the final part of the experience.
Keywords
Medical treatment and pain; Memory; Colonoscopy; Lithotripsy; Pain intensity
“We found no significant correlation between the duration of the procedure and retrospective evaluations—a striking illustration of Duration Neglect.” (pg. 6)
“Patients’ retrospective evaluations were strongly correlated with Peak Pain and End Pain.” (pg. 6)
“In accord with laboratory research, patients’ memories of the overall pain of both colonoscopy and lithotripsy were characterized by Peak and End Evaluation and Duration Neglect…” (pg. 7)
“The discrepancy between people’s real-time and retrospective evaluations is not surprising given the limitations of human memory and judgment.” (pg. 7)
“Peak and End Evaluation and Duration Neglect have significant implications for how clinicians conduct painful medical procedures.If the objective is to reduce patients’memory of pain, for example, lowering the peak intensity of pain could be more important than minimizing the duration of the procedure. By the same reasoning, gradual relief may be preferable to abrupt relief if patients retain a less aversive memory when the intense pain does not occur near the end of the procedure. In contrast, if the objectiveis to reduce the amount of pain actually experienced, conducting the procedure swiftly may be appropriate even if doing so increases the peak pain intensity and leaves patients with a particularly aversive memory.” (pg. 7)
