Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 

About: Journal of Behavioral Decision Making is an academic journal published by Wiley-Blackwell. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Preference & Cognition. It has an ISSN identifier of 0894-3257. Over the lifetime, 1214 publications have been published receiving 65038 citations. The journal is also known as: Behavioral decision making.

Mental accounting matters

Abstract: Mental accounting is the set of cognitive operations used by individuals and households to organize, evaluate, and keep track of financial activities Making use of research on this topic over the past decade, this paper summarizes the current state of our knowledge about how people engage in mental accounting activities Three components of mental accounting receive the most attention This first captures how outcomes are perceived and experienced, and how decisions are made and subsequently evaluated The accounting system provides the inputs to be both ex ante and ex post cost–benefit analyses A second component of mental accounting involves the assignment of activities to specific accounts Both the sources and uses of funds are labeled in real as well as in mental accounting systems Expenditures are grouped into categories (housing, food, etc) and spending is sometimes constrained by implicit or explicit budgets The third component of mental accounting concerns the frequency with which accounts are evaluated and ‘choice bracketing’ Accounts can be balanced daily, weekly, yearly, and so on, and can be defined narrowly or broadly Each of the components of mental accounting violates the economic principle of fungibility As a result, mental accounting influences choice, that is, it matters Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits

Abstract: This paper re-examines the commonly observed inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. We propose that this relationship occurs because people rely on affect when judging the risk and benefit of specific hazards. Evidence supporting this proposal is obtained in two experimental studies. Study 1 investigated the inverse relationship between risk and benefit judgments under a time-pressure condition designed to limit the use of analytic thought and enhance the reliance on affect. As expected, the inverse relationship was strengthened when time pressure was introduced. Study 2 tested and confirmed the hypothesis that providing information designed to alter the favorability of one's overall affective evaluation of an item (say nuclear power) would systematically change the risk and benefit judgments for that item. Both studies suggest that people seem prone to using an ‘affect heuristic’ which improves judgmental efficiency by deriving both risk and benefit evaluations from a common source—affective reactions to the stimulus item. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors

Abstract: We present a psychometric scale that assesses risk taking in five content domains: financial decisions (separately for investing versus gambling), health/safety, recreational, ethical, and social decisions. Respondents rate the likelihood that they would engage in domain-specific risky activities (Part I). An optional Part II assesses respondents' perceptions of the magnitude of the risks and expected benefits of the activities judged in Part I. The scale's construct validity and consistency is evaluated for a sample of American undergraduate students. As expected, respondents' degree of risk taking was highly domain-specific, i.e. not consistently risk-averse or consistently risk-seeking across all content domains. Women appeared to be more risk-averse in all domains except social risk. A regression of risk taking (likelihood of engaging in the risky activity) on expected benefits and perceived risks suggests that gender and content domain differences in apparent risk taking are associated with differences in the perception of the activities' benefits and risk, rather than with differences in attitude towards perceived risk. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Data collection in a flat world: the strengths and weaknesses of mechanical turk samples

Abstract: Mechanical Turk (MTurk), an online labor system run by Amazon.com, provides quick, easy, and inexpensive access to online research participants. As use of MTurk has grown, so have questions from behavioral researchers about its participants, reliability, and low compensation. In this article, we review recent research about MTurk and compare MTurk participants with community and student samples on a set of personality dimensions and classic decision-making biases. Across two studies, we find many similarities between MTurk participants and traditional samples, but we also find important differences. For instance, MTurk participants are less likely to pay attention to experimental materials, reducing statistical power. They are more likely to use the Internet to find answers, even with no incentive for correct responses. MTurk participants have attitudes about money that are different from a community sample’s attitudes but similar to students’ attitudes. Finally, MTurk participants are less extraverted and have lower self-esteem than other participants, presenting challenges for some research domains. Despite these differences, MTurk participants produce reliable results consistent with standard decision-making biases: they are present biased, risk-averse for gains, risk-seeking for losses, show delay/expedite asymmetries, and show the certainty effect—with almost no significant differences in effect sizes from other samples. We conclude that MTurk offers a highly valuable opportunity for data collection and recommend that researchers using MTurk (1) include screening questions that gauge attention and language comprehension; (2) avoid questions with factual answers; and (3) consider how individual differences in financial and social domains may influence results. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Portrait of The Angry Decision Maker: How Appraisal Tendencies Shape Anger's Influence on Cognition.

Abstract: This paper reviews the impact of anger on judgment and decision making. Section I proposes that anger merits special attention in the study of judgment and decision making because the effects of anger often diverge from those of other negative emotions. Section II presents an Appraisal-Tendency Framework for predicting and organizing such effects. Section III reviews empirical evidence for the uniqueness of anger’s relations to judgment and decision making. Section IV connects the Appraisal-Tendency Framework to associated mechanisms and theories. Drawing on the evidence, Section V presents the question of whether anger should be considered a positive emotion. It also proposes the hypothesis that anger will be experienced as relatively unpleasant and unrewarding when reflecting back on the source of one’s anger but experienced as relatively pleasant and rewarding when looking forward. Section VI synthesizes the evidence into a new portrait of the angry decision maker. Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.