When and why rare events are underweighted: A direct comparison of the sampling, partial feedback, full feedback and description choice paradigms
When and why rare events are underweighted: A direct comparison of the sampling, partial feedback, full feedback and description choice paradigms
复制标题
DOI：
10.3758/s13423-010-0040-2
复制
发表时间：
2011-04-01
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
Newell, Ben R.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Camilleri, Adrian R.;Newell, Ben R.
基于经验抽样的风险选择检验通常有两种范式。反馈范例包括大量重复的、结果性的选择，以及关于选择的（部分反馈）或选择和放弃的（全部反馈）回报的反馈。抽样范式在单个结果选择之前邀请无成本的样本。尽管程序上存在差异，但两种基于经验的范式的选择都表明，相对于罕见事件的客观概率，它们的权重偏低。这与当选择选项被描述时的过度权重形成对比，从而导致经验和基于描述的选择之间的“差距”。通过比较描述、抽样、部分和全部反馈范式的选择，行为数据和基于模型的分析重复了“差距”，但也表明了反馈范式和抽样范式之间的显著差异。我们的结果表明，仅仅是结果的顺序经验不足以产生可靠的减重。我们讨论了什么时候以及为什么会发生减重，并暗示了重复的、结果性的选择是关键因素。
Two paradigms are commonly used to examine risky choice based on experiential sampling. The feedback paradigm involves a large number of repeated, consequential choices with feedback about the chosen (partial feedback) or chosen and foregone (full feedback) payoffs. The sampling paradigm invites cost-free samples before a single consequential choice. Despite procedural differences, choices in both experience-based paradigms suggest underweighting of rare events relative to their objective probability. This contrasts with overweighting when choice options are described, thereby leading to a 'gap' between experience and description-based choice. Behavioural data and model-based analysis from an experiment comparing choices from description, sampling, and partial-and full-feedback paradigms replicated the 'gap', but also indicated significant differences between feedback and sampling paradigms. Our results suggest that mere sequential experience of outcomes is insufficient to produce reliable underweighting. We discuss when and why underweighting occurs, and implicate repeated, consequential choice as the critical factor.