This way, please: Uncovering the directional effects of attribute translations on decision making
Journal Title: Judgment and Decision Making - Year 2020, Vol 15, Issue 1
Abstract
The translation of choice attributes into more meaningful information (e.g., from kWh to costs) is a form of choice architecture that is thought to facilitate decision making by providing decision signposts that activate personally relevant but latent objectives and guide decisions towards options that are most congruent with the activated objectives. Here, we investigated the psychological mechanisms that underlie and drive the directional effects of attribute translations on decision making. Across two choice experiments (total N = 973), we provide empirical support for our proposition that attribute translations operate via pre-decisional attention processes. Specifically, we demonstrate that attribute translations focus individuals’ attention on choice options that are most congruent with the concerns highlighted by translations, and that this attentional prioritization of alternatives predicts choice. In addition to the cognitive mechanisms underlying attribute translations, we highlight the choice architectural principles that moderate the effectiveness of translations. We show that the directional effects of attribute translations are driven by the information that translations provide rather than by contextual changes in the decision environment. In line with previous research on evaluability, we find the effectiveness of attribute translations to depend on information format, with translations conveying evaluative information having a larger impact on decision making than translations providing numerical information. The present study is among the first to investigate the decision making processes underlying a choice architectural intervention. It provides insights into the mechanisms that drive and facilitate the signpost effect and renders recommendations for the implementation of attribute translations in policy making.
Authors and Affiliations
Stephanie Mertens, Ulf J. J. Hahnel and Tobias Brosch
Keywords
Related Articles
- EP ID EP678457
- DOI -
- Views 173
- Downloads 0
Are neoliberals more susceptible to bullshit?
We conducted additional analyses of Pennycook et al.’s (2015, Study 2) data to investigate the possibility that there would be ideological differences in “bullshit receptivity” that would be explained by individual diffe...
Number preferences in lotteries
We explore people’s preferences for numbers in large proprietary data sets from two different lottery games. We find that choice is far from uniform, and exhibits some familiar and some new tendencies and biases. Players...
Now you see it now you don't: The effectiveness of the recognition heuristic for selecting stocks.
It has been proposed that recognition can form the basis of simple but ecologically rational decision strategies (Gigerenzer & Goldstein, 1996). Borges, Goldstein, Ortmann, & Gigerenzer (1999) found that constructing sha...
The Decision Making Individual Differences Inventory and guidelines for the study of individual differences in judgment and decision-making research
Individual differences in decision making are a topic of longstanding interest, but often yield inconsistent and contradictory results. After providing an overview of individual difference measures that have commonly bee...
Elicitation of normative and fairness judgments: Do incentives matter?
Krupka and Weber (2013) introduce an incentive-compatible coordination game as an alternative method for elicitation of normative judgments. I show, however, that people provide virtually the same responses in incentiviz...