Is broad bracketing always better? How broad decision framing leads to more optimal preferences over repeated gambles
Journal Title: Judgment and Decision Making - Year 2017, Vol 12, Issue 4
Abstract
The effect of choice bracketing — the consideration of repeated decisions as a set versus in isolation — has important implications for products that are inherently time-sensitive and entail varying levels of risk, including retirement accounts, insurance purchases, and lottery preferences. We show that broader choice brackets lead to more optimal risk preferences across all risk types, including negative expected value and pure-loss gambles, suggesting that broad decision framing can help individuals make better choices over risks more generally. We also examine the mechanism behind these bracketing effects. We find that bracketing effects work by attenuating (magnifying) the weight placed on potential losses for positive EV (non-positive EV) gambles and by providing aggregated outcomes that might not otherwise be calculated. Thus, decision frames that provide probability distributions or aggregated outcomes can help individuals maximize expected value across different types of risky prospects.
Authors and Affiliations
Elizabeth C. Webb and Suzanne B. Shu
Keywords
Related Articles
- EP ID EP678301
- DOI -
- Views 143
- Downloads 0
Taking the sting out of choice: Diversification of investments
It is often the case that one can choose a mix of alternative options rather than have to select one option only. Such an opportunity to diversify may blunt the risk involved in all-or-none choice. Here we investigate re...
Choice processes and their post-decisional consequences in morally conflicting decisions
Morally challenging decisions tend to be perceived as difficult by decision makers and often lead to post-decisional worry or regret. To test potential causes of these consequences, we employed realistic, morally challen...
Bullshit for you; transcendence for me. A commentary on “On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit”
I raise a methodological concern regarding the study performed by Pennycook, Cheyne, Barr, Koehler & Fugelsang (2015), in which they used randomly generated, but syntactically correct, statements that were rated for prof...
Foreground-background salience effect in traffic risk communication
Pie charts are often used to communicate risk, such as the risk of driving. In the foreground-background salience effect (FBSE), foreground (probability of bad event) has greater salience than background (no bad event) i...
Dishonest helping and harming after (un)fair treatment
People experience fair and unfair treatment daily, and at times may react by breaking ethical rules and lying. Here, we assess the extent to which individuals engage in dishonest behavior aimed at helping or harming othe...