wop_research_projects_2016-2017

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Last revision Both sides next revision
wop_research_projects_2016-2017 [2017/01/13 04:42]
filination
wop_research_projects_2016-2017 [2017/01/18 14:14]
filination
Line 57: Line 57:
   * [[http://​journals.sagepub.com/​doi/​abs/​10.1177/​1948550610389338|Active Transgressions and Moral Elusions: Action Framing Influences Moral Behavior]] (SPPS)   * [[http://​journals.sagepub.com/​doi/​abs/​10.1177/​1948550610389338|Active Transgressions and Moral Elusions: Action Framing Influences Moral Behavior]] (SPPS)
   * [[http://​www.kevinreuter.com/​ewExternalFiles/​Is_there_really_an_omission_effect.pdf|Is there really an omission effect?​]] ​   * [[http://​www.kevinreuter.com/​ewExternalFiles/​Is_there_really_an_omission_effect.pdf|Is there really an omission effect?​]] ​
 +  * [[http://​scholarship.law.cornell.edu/​cgi/​viewcontent.cgi?​article=2916&​context=clr|A NORMALITY BIAS IN LEGALDECISION MAKING]] - although this is a law paper, it has a very extensive introduction you can use for your lit-review  
 +  * Another good review - [[http://​www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.cc/​science/​article/​pii/​S0065260108603226|COUNTERFACTUAL THINKING ​ AND SOCIAL PERCEPTION: THINKING ABOUT WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN]] ​ (focus especially on IIb) 
 +  * [[http://​www.tandfonline.com.sci-hub.cc/​doi/​abs/​10.1080/​02699930903512168|The effects of action, normality, and decision carefulnesson ​ anticipated ​ regret: ​ Evidence ​ for  a  broad  mediatingrole ​ of  decision ​ justifiability]] (2010) - they generally oppose Baron & Ritov
  
 ==== Status quo bias ==== ==== Status quo bias ====
Line 70: Line 72:
   * [[https://​www.hks.harvard.edu/​fs/​rzeckhau/​SQBDM.pdf|Status quo bias in decision making]]   * [[https://​www.hks.harvard.edu/​fs/​rzeckhau/​SQBDM.pdf|Status quo bias in decision making]]
   * [[https://​pdfs.semanticscholar.org/​069f/​8e0c981d32244ebe480a17019bc9360e725c.pdf|The Psychology of Doing Nothing]] (PsycBull, 2003)   * [[https://​pdfs.semanticscholar.org/​069f/​8e0c981d32244ebe480a17019bc9360e725c.pdf|The Psychology of Doing Nothing]] (PsycBull, 2003)
 +  * [[http://​scholarship.law.cornell.edu/​cgi/​viewcontent.cgi?​article=2916&​context=clr|A NORMALITY BIAS IN LEGALDECISION MAKING]] - although this is a law paper, it has a very extensive introduction you can use for your lit-review ​
  
 ==== Mere ownership effect ==== ==== Mere ownership effect ====
Line 87: Line 90:
   - [[https://​static1.squarespace.com/​static/​586fd7e2ff7c5060b1f0f079/​t/​58715c1fbf629afa513fefa8/​1483824159577/​Morewedge--Endowment+Effect.pdf|ENDOWMENT EFFECT CAREY MOREWEDGE Theory map]]   - [[https://​static1.squarespace.com/​static/​586fd7e2ff7c5060b1f0f079/​t/​58715c1fbf629afa513fefa8/​1483824159577/​Morewedge--Endowment+Effect.pdf|ENDOWMENT EFFECT CAREY MOREWEDGE Theory map]]
  
-==== Decoy effect ====+==== Decoy effect / Asymmetric dominance / attraction ​effect ====
  
 Description:​ Introducing an irrelevant bad option to a choice between two options shifts preferences from one option to the other. ​ Description:​ Introducing an irrelevant bad option to a choice between two options shifts preferences from one option to the other. ​
Line 93: Line 96:
 Readings: Readings:
   * Example of a meta-analysis from 1995: http://​bit.ly/​2iZcreM and we’ll do the decoy effect meta on an updated literature and from a different angle (factors).   * Example of a meta-analysis from 1995: http://​bit.ly/​2iZcreM and we’ll do the decoy effect meta on an updated literature and from a different angle (factors).
-  * I strongly suggest reading Ariely'​s experiments in predictability irrational. Quite entertaining.+  * I strongly suggest reading Ariely'​s experiments in predictability irrational. Quite entertaining. ​(see Ariely'​s book in the Dropbox) (see [[https://​www.ted.com/​talks/​dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions?​utm_source=tedcomshare&​utm_medium=referral&​utm_campaign=tedspread|Dan'​s TED video]], start from 11:00 for the Decoy Effect) 
 +  * The classic experiment - [[http://​www.dtic.mil/​get-tr-doc/​pdf?​AD=ADA101132|Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives:​ Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis]] (Huber, Payne, & Puto, 1982) - This one is a bit hard to read/​follow 
 +  * [[http://​web.mit.edu/​ariely/​www/​MIT/​Papers/​ade.pdf|Seeking Subjective Dominance in Multidimensional Space: An Explanation of the Asymmetric Dominance Effect]] (Ariely & Wallsten, 1995) - much clearer 
 +  * [[http://​journals.ama.org.sci-hub.cc/​doi/​abs/​10.1509/​jmr.14.0020|More evidence challenging the robustness and usefulness of the attraction effect]] - good paper about the problems with findings - see their experiments in the [[http://​journals.ama.org/​doi/​suppl/​10.1509/​jmr.14.0020/​suppl_file/​jmr.14.0020-web-appendix.pdf|supplementary materials]] 
 +  * [[http://​repositorio.uchile.cl/​bitstream/​handle/​2250/​128655/​Regret%20salience.pdf?​sequence=1|Regret salience and accountability in the decoy effect]] (2013) - links decoy effect with the other students'​ biases 
 +  * [[https://​kuscholarworks.ku.edu/​bitstream/​handle/​1808/​17776/​MishraS_JMR_30(3)331.pdf?​sequence=1|Antecedents of the attraction effect: An information-processing approach]]  
 +  * It also works in frogs - [[https://​www.researchgate.net/​profile/​Michael_Ryan22/​publication/​281337999_SEXUAL_SELECTION_Irrationality_in_mate_choice_revealed_by_tungara_frogs/​links/​55e4c57008aede0b57358026.pdf|Irrationality in mate choice revealedby túngara frogs]] (Science, 2015) (but we won't try and replicate that one) 
  
 ==== Norm theory ==== ==== Norm theory ====
  
 How social norms and past behavior affects judgments or feelings of regret. ​ How social norms and past behavior affects judgments or feelings of regret. ​
 +I suggest we focus on normality of action-inaction and regret
  
 Readings: Readings:
   * See my preprint paper under review - https://​osf.io/​6jvh8/?​view_only=4d181e034b974b59890650ed0f45d58b  ​   * See my preprint paper under review - https://​osf.io/​6jvh8/?​view_only=4d181e034b974b59890650ed0f45d58b  ​
 +  * [[http://​scholarship.law.cornell.edu/​cgi/​viewcontent.cgi?​article=2916&​context=clr|A NORMALITY BIAS IN LEGALDECISION MAKING]] - although this is a law paper, it has a very extensive introduction you can use for your lit-review ​
 +  * Another good review - [[http://​www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.cc/​science/​article/​pii/​S0065260108603226|COUNTERFACTUAL THINKING ​ AND SOCIAL PERCEPTION: THINKING ABOUT WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN]] ​ (focus especially on IIa2, IIIa, Va and Vb)
 +  * [[http://​www.tandfonline.com.sci-hub.cc/​doi/​abs/​10.1080/​02699930903512168|The effects of action, normality, and decision carefulnesson ​ anticipated ​ regret: ​ Evidence ​ for  a  broad  mediatingrole ​ of  decision ​ justifiability]] (2010) - good experimental design, but no effects for normality
 +  * [[https://​www.researchgate.net/​profile/​Gary_Wells3/​publication/​222901869_Counterfactual_processing_of_normal_and_exceptional_events/​links/​54dbb7db0cf2a7769d928d93.pdf|Counterfactual Processing of Normal and Exceptional Events]] (1989) - simple design, easy to follow
 +  * [[https://​pure.uvt.nl/​portal/​files/​475310/​zeelenberg-2002_JPSP.pdf|The inaction effect in the psychology of regret]] (2002) - I replicated their study.
 +  * [[https://​www.researchgate.net/​profile/​Gary_Wells3/​publication/​232472793_The_Undoing_of_Scenarios/​links/​55ba736608aed621de0ad0fb.pdf|The Undoing of Scenarios]] (JPSP, 1987) - this one is a bit complicated,​ only if you feel like it
 +
  
-==== Inaction inertia====+==== Inaction inertia ​(not chosen) ​====
  
 People who pass once (inaction) tend to pass again in the future (inertia). People who pass once (inaction) tend to pass again in the future (inertia).
Line 109: Line 127:
   * http://​www.tandfonline.com/​doi/​abs/​10.1080/​10463283.2013.841481 ​   * http://​www.tandfonline.com/​doi/​abs/​10.1080/​10463283.2013.841481 ​
  
-==== Counterfactuals/​mutabilty with blame attributions ​ ====+==== Counterfactuals/​mutabilty with blame attributions ​(not chosen) ​ ====
  
 people attribute more blame when it’s easier to think of alternatives (the outcome is mutable). people attribute more blame when it’s easier to think of alternatives (the outcome is mutable).
  • wop_research_projects_2016-2017.txt
  • Last modified: 2017/01/29 13:59
  • by filination