RUI: Collaborative Research: Assessments and Stances Regarding the Uncertainty of (Un)Desired Outcomes

对未来结果的预期和预测不准确可能会破坏决策和最佳规划。一种有害的不准确性是乐观偏见，在这种偏见中，首选结果被认为比保证的可能性更大，和/或非首选结果被认为比保证的可能性更小。 乐观偏见会导致有问题的个人行为，如不明智的冒险和过度购买，人类悲剧，如工程失败造成的死亡，以及社会重要现象，如股市泡沫。 动机目标通常被认为是乐观偏见的基础，但对不同目标何时影响乐观主义，包括有可能降低乐观主义和提高准确性的目标，人们的理解不足。 事实上，主要的理论假设对结果的偏好和对结果的期望是独立的，这与一些实证研究结果不一致。拟议的研究解决了这一矛盾。该研究是由一个新的目标偏置的期望框架，它假定的上下文特征，形成两个方向之间的平衡，一个人可以采取对形成期望。 方向的平衡最终决定了目标是否以及如何塑造期望。 该框架还有助于制定步骤，消除偏见或减少过度乐观，提高专业预测人员和公众的准确性。 消除过度乐观的偏见可以改善预测，并最终在许多情况下（例如，金融、健康、安全）。 将进行三个实验。 一行将审查的范围，负责的过程，一个关键的差异，在如何衡量的期望是由结果的可取性或偏好的影响。 过去的研究结果已经返回了相当不同的指标的程度上的结果的愿望有偏见的影响，但这些差异可能与两种方式之间的区别，其中期望通常在研究和日常环境中征求。 第二行将讨论可用信息的类型如何影响期望偏差。 一个令人惊讶的可能性是，随着信息变得越来越清晰，人们的取向和目标发生了变化，从而产生了更多的偏见，而不是更少。第三条线将测试一种针对过度乐观的新型去偏见干预。 研究的参与者将包括体育迷、洪泛区房屋的所有者和病人。三组人都表现出过度乐观所有拟议的工作都将为目标导向预期框架的有效性提供信息。该基金的研究将涉及与研究生和本科生的合作，因此将在他们的研究培训/教育中发挥重要作用。该奖项反映了NSF的法定使命，并通过使用基金会的智力价值和更广泛的影响审查标准进行评估，被认为值得支持。

Inaccuracies in expectations and predictions about future outcomes can ruin decision making and optimal planning. One pernicious type of inaccuracy is an optimism bias, in which preferred outcomes are viewed as more likely than warranted and/or unpreferred outcomes are viewed as less likely than warranted. Optimism biases lead to problematic individual behaviors like unwise risk taking and over-purchasing, human tragedies like deaths from engineering failures and societally important phenomena like stock market bubbles. Motivational goals are often assumed to underlie optimism biases but there is an inadequate understanding of when different goals impact optimism, including goals that have the potential to reduce optimism and promote accuracy. In fact, major theories assume that preferences for outcomes and expectations about the outcomes are independent, which is inconsistent with some empirical findings. The proposed research addresses this discrepancy. The research is structured by a novel Goal-Biased Expectations Framework, which posits contextual features that shape the balance between two orientations that a person can take toward forming expectations. The balance of orientations ultimately determines whether and how goals shape expectations. The framework is also useful for developing steps to debias or reduce overoptimism and promote accuracy among professional forecasters and the public. Debiasing overoptimism can yield improved predictions and ultimately better planning, preparation, and outcomes across many contexts (e.g., financial, health, security). Three lines of experiments will be conducted. One line will examine the scope of, and processes responsible for, a crucial difference in how measures of expectations are affected by outcome desirability or preference. Past research findings have returned quite different indicators of the extent to which outcome desirability has a biasing influence, but these differences might align with a distinction between two ways in which expectations are commonly solicited in studies and in everyday contexts. A second line will address how types of available information influence the desirability bias. One surprising possibility is that as information becomes more clear, people's orientation and goals shift in a manner that produces more bias rather than less. A third line will test a novel debiasing intervention for overoptimism. Participants in the studies will include sports fans, owners of homes in floodplains, and patients?three groups known to exhibit overoptimism. All of the proposed work will inform the validity of the Goal-Biased Expectations framework. The studies on this grant will involve collaboration with graduate and undergraduate students, and therefore will play important roles in their research training/education.This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.