Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The framing effect is a cognitive bias in which people decide between options based on whether the options are presented with positive or negative connotations. [1] Individuals have a tendency to make risk-avoidant choices when options are positively framed, while selecting more loss-avoidant options when presented with a negative frame.
The asymmetrically dominated option is therefore a decoy serving to increase preference for the dominating option. The decoy effect is also an example of the violation of the independence of irrelevant alternatives axiom of decision theory. More simply, when deciding between two options, an unattractive third option can change the perceived ...
Choice-supportive bias or post-purchase rationalization is the tendency to retroactively ascribe positive attributes to an option one has selected and/or to demote the forgone options. [1]
The default effect, a concept within the study of nudge theory, explains the tendency for an agent to generally accept the default option in a strategic interaction. [1] The default option is the course of action that the agent, or chooser, will obtain if he or she does not specify a particular course of action. [ 2 ]
Array the options. Kahneman and Tversky found that personal "psychological accounts" will produce the effect of framing the choice and determining what options are considered as subjects to factor. For example, an evening at a concert could be just one entry in a much larger account, of say a "meeting a potential mate" account.
The Hawthorne effect is a type of human behavior reactivity in which individuals modify an aspect of their behavior in response to their awareness of being observed. [1] [2] The effect was discovered in the context of research conducted at the Hawthorne Western Electric plant; however, some scholars think the descriptions are fictitious.
Among personal decision-makers, a prevention focus is activated and people are more satisfied with their choices after choosing among few options compared to many options, i.e. choice overload. However, individuals experience a reverse choice overload effect when acting as proxy decision-makers. [7]
The less-is-better effect was demonstrated in several studies that preceded Hsee's 1998 experiment. In 1992, a team led by Michael H. Birnbaum found "that an inferior risky option (e.g. a 5% chance to win $96 or $0) can be valued more highly than a superior risky option (e.g. a 5% chance to win $96 or $24)."