Fluency and familiarity as a heuristic
=> similar to the recognition heuristic, the idea of using familiarity (fam. + ease) => interpreted as good, generally
Application: novelty vs familiarity in art, music, tv shows, food, etc…
- we like both (aesthetically)
- we might not like variety as much as we think we do (ppl prefer familiarity)
- if u find smth u like,we have a general tendency to stick with (default)
Preference judgment (how much we like it)
- systematically affected by familiarity !
=> gravitate towards same similar music or art
=> familiarity unconsciously used as a heuristic
How can you manipulate / test this experimentally: is familiarity (alone) part of something that can predict your preferences
Belke et al (2010)
- similar => test familiarity in terms of fluency
- paintings of
various styles, TITLE was manipulated (related or not to the piece of art)
=> if it is related, ppl judged it as they liked it better
=> more effect for representation than abstract works
WHY?
- title makes measurable difference
- Fluency / Disfluency: experiencing ease in general => translates to “I like this better”
Application: encourage saving (for retirement)
Match funds: to encourage saving
How much you save, we will too (the company) Up to certain limit eg (15% of salary)
Loss aversion / Prepay commission
- feel like they’re losing money when not using the match funds (failure to gain X does not feel the same as losing X)
- prepay the limit of matching (eg 3000) as a default
- ## so if the employee cannot match the 3000, they must pay the difference back, aware of losing (watch total go down)
Defaults / opt in opt out: enrollment form (organ donation - Belgium vs the Netherlands)
- Most countries: check the box if you want to participate
- Belgium: check the box if you don’t want to join…
They don’t check the box
=> the automatic enrollment with option to opt out (ppl tend to stick with the default)
automatically join, unless you INTENTIONALLY opt out
Regret aversion
Implicit goal to avoid regret rather than avoid loss / other potential negative outcomes
“Could have done it differently” => responsibility
Depends on other factors (systematic biases we show)
- eg action vs inaction => there are 2 routes, more potential regret for an active choice than a passive choice
Omission bias - stock example
X: sell a to buy B
Y: wants to buy a, decides to keep B
B does worse, does X or Y feel more regret?
Issue of omission bias /
- X feels more regret (active action)
- both made choices, but Y’s is passive
Similar to opt in opt out (do u switch or just think of it?)
Omission bias = tendency to focus on effects of actions (eg X) more than failures to act (Y) => bias to go for the passive option
issue: negative consequence bc if we are less sensitive to inaction, creates potential for missed opportunities
Not doing anything is also a choice when there are good opportunities (despite feeling less responsibility)
What determines regret?
Besides the outcome:
- action / omission bias
- responsibility (making the choice) => perceived responsibility: reluctant to take actions despite clear potential benefits
- availability of counterfactuals
Reversed omission bias => Action bias
=> when bias toward active rather the passive option
Bar-Eli (2007)
Penalty kicks study:
- 9 combinations of shooter and goalie’s direction
- shooter tend to choose left or right, similar to the goalie
- evenly distributed 28,7 in the middle
- goalkeepers nearly 59% choose left or right, but almost 30% of the time the shooter shoots there (mismatch)
- probability of saves => high chance to save if the goalie stays in the center and kick in center
They don’t stay in the center that much, but if they did, they could have a high chance to save it, objectively 30% of kicks in the center
Why would they be biased toward action? Staying in the center and they score makes it seems like you didn’t do anything (potential for regret, could have done something - passive not really a safe choice in this case)
Predicting omission vs action bias
=> what is the expected behavior (norm)?
The option that is not the expected or default one / draws attention => bias against that
If passive is the default => omission bias
If the norm is doing something => action bias
(Goalkeeper during penalty kicks, doctors prescribing treatment)
Availability of counterfactuals
=> example of silver vs bronze medalists (Medvec et al)
- more regret if u can easily imagine how things could have gone differently
Alternate possible way things might have turned out => could’ve been, might’ve been - silver medalists did better than bronze medalists, but the bronze seem more happy, why?
=> almost gold for the silver medalists, 3rd place is “just” making the podium, they get a medal too
Silver: easy to imagine getting gold
Bronze: easy to imagine not getting any medal at all
Counterfactuals
- disappointment and regret depends on perceived likelihood of possible alternatives
2 ppl who won silver or bronze could have 2 different reactions:
perceive higher chance of better outcome (“I could have easily won gold”) => disappointment
Perceive low chance of better outcome (“unlikely to win gold anyways”) => satisfied
=> abt the “alternate world”
Near misses
=> traffic jam leads to not being able to catch flight
=> one is told the flight left on time, the other is told the plane delayed and just left 5 minutes ago
=> latter second person, will feel worse more regret or frustrating
=> so close, easier to imagine making up those five minutes compared to 30 mins
So why is a near miss worse?
=> counterfactuals: easier to imagine things could have been different
=> big miss (30 mins) harder to imagine – less regret
Why not try to avoid regret?
- predicting / anticipated regret is not the same as the actual regret
- hypotheticals, not experienced yet
