The paper concerns the underestimation bias which consists in a difference of judgement depending on whether it is based on global intuitive assessment or rather on a minute evaluation of parts. It was hypothesized that global instinctive evaluations are relatively low, while evaluations based on a scrutiny of parts are relatively high. Two experiments supported this prediction. In experiment 1, a packet labeled with one word:'bakalie' (Polish equivalent of dried fruit & nuts), was judged as cheaper then a packet containing hazelnuts, walnuts, almonds and raisins. In experiment 2, the content of a shopping basket with 8 products was evaluated as cheaper than the same 8 products evaluated separately and totaled. These findings may allow for two interpretations. One pertains to the structure of cognitive representations of objects under evaluation. The second introduces the hypothesis of cognitive algebra.
Information integration in risky decision making was studied by using a functional measurement approach. Participants (N=84) played a computerized risky card game incorporating a within-subject design with the 3 factors (a) probability of negative or positive outcome, (b) amount of gain, and (c) amount of loss. Results on the group level showed mainly additive patterns of integration. Observed deviations from the general pattern could be explained more detailed by the results of the individual analyses: There was a wide range of different strategies from centration to additive and mixed additive-multiplicative strategies. The most frequent rules of integration were additive; pure multiplicative rules were rarely found. These findings give support to additive models in risky decision making. However, individual differences in risky decision making strategies appear to be a topic that deserves further study.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.