Leader-driven distortion of probability and payoff information affects choices between risky prospects

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 394-411

  Dekay, Michael L ^a   Stone, Eric R ^b   Miller, Seth A ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bidirectional reasoning; Choice; Information distortion; Mediation; Monetary gambles; Multilevel modeling; Non consequentialist processes; Preference formation; Risk

Indexed keywords

EID: 80052563656     PISSN: 08943257     EISSN: 10990771     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bdm.699     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Alexander, L., & Moore, M. (2009). Deontological ethics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (fall 2008 ed.). Retrieved July 20, 2009, from Stanford University, Center for the Study of Language and Information Web site:.
2. Arkes, H. R. (1991). Costs and benefits of judgment errors: Implications for debiasing. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 486-498.
3. Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11, 142-163.
4. Bond, S. D., Carlson, K. A., Meloy, M. G., Russo, J. E., & Tanner, R. J. (2007). Information distortion in the evaluation of a single option. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 240-254.
5. Brownstein, A. L. (2003). Biased predecision processing. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 545-568.
6. Brownstein, A. L., Read, S. J., & Simon, D. (2004). Bias at the racetrack: Effects of individual expertise and task importance on predecision reevaluation of alternatives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 891-904.
7. Carlson, K. A., Meloy, M. G., & Russo, J. E. (2006). Leader-driven primacy: Using attribute order to affect consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 513-518.
8. Carlson, K. A., & Russo, J. E. (2001). Biased interpretation of evidence by mock jurors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 91-103.
9. Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (1999). Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 115-153.
10. Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (2002). Incorporating the irrelevant: Anchors in judgments of belief and value. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 120-138). New York: Cambridge University Press.
11. DeKay, M. L., Patiño-Echeverri, D., & Fischbeck, P. S. (2009a). Better safe than sorry: Precautionary reasoning and implied dominance in risky decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22, 338-361.
12. DeKay, M. L., Patiño-Echeverri, D., & Fischbeck, P. S. (2009b). Distortion of probability and outcome information in risky decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 79-92.
13. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
14. Glöckner, A., Betsch, T., & Schindler, N. (in press). Coherence shifts in probabilistic inference tasks. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making.
15. Hastie, R., & Dawes, R. (2010). Rational choice in an uncertain world: The psychology of judgment and decision making (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16. Holyoak, K. J., & Simon, D. (1999). Bidirectional reasoning in decision making by constraint satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 3-31.
17. Hooker, B. (2008). Rule consequentialism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (fall 2008 ed.). Retrieved July 20, 2009, from Stanford University, Center for the Study of Language and Information Web site:.
18. Hope, L., Memon, A., & McGeorge, P. (2004). Understanding pretrial publicity: Predecisional distortion of evidence by mock jurors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 111-119.
19. Hsee, C. K. (1995). Elastic justification: How tempting but task-irrelevant factors influence decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 330-337.
20. Hsee, C. K. (1996). Elastic justification: How unjustifiable factors influence judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 122-129.
21. Johnson, E. J., Häuble, G., & Keinan, A. (2007). Aspects of endowment: A query theory account of value construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 461-474.
22. Levy, A. G., & Hershey, J. C. (2006). Distorting the probability of treatment success to justify treatment decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101, 52-58.
23. Levy, A. G., & Hershey, J. C. (2008). Value-induced bias in medical decision making. Medical Decision Making, 28, 269-276.
24. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Brown, C. H., Wang, W., & Hoffman, J. M. (2007). The intermediate endpoint effect in logistic and probit regression. Clinical Trials, 4, 499-513.
25. McClelland, G. H. (2000). Increasing statistical power without increasing sample size. American Psychologist, 55, 963-964.
26. Meloy, M. G., & Russo, J. E. (2004). Binary choice under instructions to select versus reject. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 93, 114-128.
27. Meloy, M. G., Russo, J. E., & Miller, E. G. (2006). Monetary incentives and mood. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 267-275.
28. Montgomery, H. (1983). Decision rules and the search for a dominance structure: Towards a process model of decision making. In P. Humphreys, O. Svenson, & A. Vari (Eds.), Analysing and aiding decision processes (pp. 343-369). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
29. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175-220.
30. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31. Russo, J. E., Carlson, K. A., & Meloy, M. G. (2006). Choosing an inferior alternative. Psychological Science, 17, 899-904.
32. Russo, J. E., Carlson, K. A., Meloy, M. G., & Yong, K. (2008). The goal of consistency as a cause of information distortion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 456-470.
33. Russo, J. E., Medvec, V. H., & Meloy, M. G. (1996). The distortion of information during decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 102-110.
34. Russo, J. E., Meloy, M. G., & Medvec, V. H. (1998). Predecisional distortion of product information. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 438-452.
35. Russo, J. E., Meloy, M. G., & Wilks, T. J. (2000). Predecisional distortion of information by auditors and salespersons. Management Science, 46, 13-27.
36. Russo, J. E., & Yong, K. (in press). The distortion of information to support an emerging evaluation of risk. Journal of Econometrics.
37. Simon, D. (2004). A third view of the black box: Cognitive coherence in legal decision making. The University of Chicago Law Review, 71, 511-586.
38. Simon, D., Krawczyk, D. C., & Holyoak, K. J. (2004). Construction of preferences by constraint satisfaction. Psychological Science, 15, 331-336.
39. Simon, D., Pham, L. B., Le, Q. A., & Holyoak, K. J. (2001). The emergence of coherence over the course of decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1250-1260.
40. Simon, D., Snow, C. J., & Read, S. J. (2004). The redux of cognitive consistency theories: Evidence judgments by constraint satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 814-837.
41. Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2008). Consequentialism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (fall 2008 ed.). Retrieved July 20, 2009, from Stanford University, Center for the Study of Language and Information Web site:.
42. Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43. Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 437-446.
44. Svenson, O. (1992). Differentiation and consolidation theory of human decision making: A frame of reference for the study of pre- and post-decision processes. Acta Psychologica, 80, 143-168.
45. Svenson, O. (2003). Values, affect and process in human decision making: A differentiation and consolidation theory perspective. In S. L. Schneider, & J. Shanteau (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research (pp. 287-326). New York: Cambridge University Press.
46. Svenson, O., Salo, I., & Lindholm, T. (2009). Post-decision consolidation and distortion of facts. Judgment and Decision Making, 4, 397-407.
47. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
48. von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research. London: Cambridge University Press.
49. Weber, E. U., Johnson, E. J., Milch, K. F., Chang, H., Brodscholl, J. C., & Goldstein, D. G. (2007). Asymmetric discounting in intertemporal choice: A query-theory account. Psychological Science, 18, 516-523.