The description-experience gap and its relation to instructional control: Do people rely more on their experience than in objective descriptions?

Álvaro Viúdez González; José Keating; Joana Arantes

doi:10.19230/10.19230/jonnpr.1709

Autores/as

Álvaro Viúdez González University of Minho
José Keating University of Minho
Joana Arantes University of Minho

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.19230/10.19230/jonnpr.1709

Palabras clave:

brecha descripción-experiencia, toma de decisiones, control instruccional

Resumen

El presente trabajo pretende revelar resultados contradictorios obtenidos en dos áreas diferentes; concretamente de dos estudios realizados en el área de la brecha descripción-experiencia mostrando que las descripciones son ignoradas cuando hay disponible experiencia personal (1,2), y bastantes estudios realizados en el área del control instruccional llegando a la conclusión opuesta (3–8). Para dar cuenta de esta contradicción, hipotetizamos que los participantes de los estudios de Jessup, Bishara y Busemeyer (1) y Lejarraga y Gonzalez (2) confiaban más en su experiencia que en las descripciones por la naturaleza difícil y demandante de las descripciones probabilísticas que veían. En nuestro experimento fueron creadas descripciones enriquecidas para evaluar la contribución de este factor a la influencia diferencial de las descripciones en la conducta de elección. Sin embargo, nuestra hipótesis no encontró respaldo en los resultados y será necesaria investigación adicional para resolver la contradicción mencionada.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

Jessup RK, Bishara AJ, Busemeyer JR. Feedback produces divergence from Prospect Theory in descriptive choice. Psychol Sci. 2008;19(10):1015–22.

Lejarraga T, Gonzalez C. Effects of feedback and complexity on repeated decisions from description. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process [Internet]. 2011;116(2):286–95. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0749597811000495%5Cnhtt p://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597811000495

Matthews BA, Shimoff E, Catania AC, Sagvolden T. Uninstructed human responding: Sensitivity to ratio and interval contingencies. J Exp Anal Behav [Internet]. 1977;27(3):453–67. Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1333575&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract

Galizio M. Contingency-shaped and rule-governed behavior: Instructional control of human loss avoidance. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979;31(1):53–70.

Shimoff E, Catania AC, Matthews BA. Uninstructed human responding: Sensitivity of low-rate performance to schedule contingencies. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981;36(2):207–20.

Catania AC, Matthews BA, Shimoff E. Instructed versus shaped human verbal behavior: Interactions with nonverbal responding. J Exp Anal Behav [Internet]. 1982;38(3):233–48. Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi? artid=1347864&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract

Matthews BA, Catania AC, Shimoff E. Effects of uninstructed verbal behavior on nonverbal responding: Contingency descriptions versus performance descriptions. J Exp Anal Behav. 1985;43(2):155–64.

Hackenberg TD, Joker VR. Instructional versus schedule control of humans’ choices in situations of diminishing returns. J Exp Anal Behav. 1994;62(3):367–83.

Tversky A, Kahneman D. Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain. 1992;5(4):297–323.

Barron G, Erev I. Small feedback-based decisions and their limited correspondence to description-based decisions. J Behav Decis Mak. 2003;16(3):215–33.

Hertwig R, Barron G, Weber EU, Erev I. Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychol Sci. 2004;15(8):534–9.

Weber EU, Shafir S, Blais A-R. Predicting risk sensitivity in humans and lower animals: Risk as variance or coefficient of variation. Psychol Rev [Internet]. 2004;111(2):430–45. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15065916

Rakow T, Newell BR. Degrees of uncertainty: An overview and framework for future research on experiencebased choice. J Behav Decis Mak. 2010;23(1):1–14.

Martin JM, Gonzalez C, Juvina I, Lebiere C. A description-experience gap in social interactions: Information about interdependence and its effects on cooperation. J Behav Decis Mak. 2014;27(4):349–62.

Wulff DU, Hills TT, Hertwig R. Online product reviews and the description-experience gap. J Behav Decis Mak [Internet]. 2015;28(3):214–23. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/bdm.1841

Dutt V, Gonzalez C. Decisions from experience reduce misconceptions about climate change. J Environ Psychol [Internet]. Elsevier Ltd; 2012;32(1):19–29. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.10.003

Dutt V, Gonzalez C. Why do we want to delay actions on climate change? Effects of probability and timing of climate consequences. J Behav Decis Mak. 2012;25(2):154–64.

Lejarraga T, Pachur T, Frey R, Hertwig R. Decisions from experience: From monetary to medical gambles. J Behav Decis Mak [Internet]. 2016;29(1):67–77. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/bdm.1877

Hayes SC. Rule-governed behavior: cognition, contingencies, and instructional control. Hayes SC, editor. New York: Springer US; 1989. 412 p.

Barron G, Leider S, Stack J. The effect of safe experience on a warnings’ impact: Sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2008;106(2):125–42.

Fantino E, Esfandiari A. Probability matching: Encouraging optimal responding in humans. Can J Exp Psychol. 2002;56(1):58–63.

Baker F, Rachlin H. Probability of reciprocation in repeated prisoner´s dilemma games. J Behav Decis Mak. 2001;14:51–67.

Gottlieb DA, Weiss T, Chapman GB. The format in which uncertainty information is presented affects decision biases. Psychol Sci. 2007;18(3):240–6.

Hilbig BE, Glöckner A. Yes, they can! Appropriate weighting of small probabilities as a function of information acquisition. Acta Psychol (Amst) [Internet]. Elsevier B.V.; 2011;138(3):390–6. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0001691811001648

Harman JL, Gonzalez C. Allais from experience: Choice consistency, rare events, and common consequences in repeated decisions. J Behav Decis Mak [Internet]. 2015;28(4):369–81. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1855

Open Science Collaboration. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science (80- ) [Internet]. 2015;349(6251). Available from: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.aac4716