No abstract

Across a range of decision contexts, we provide evidence of a novel proximity bias in probability judgments, whereby spatial distance and outcome valence systematically interact in determining probability judgments. Six hypothetical and incentive‐compatible experiments (combined N = 4007) show that a positive outcome is estimated as more likely to occur when near than distant, whereas a negative outcome is estimated as less likely to occur when near than distant (studies 1–6). The proximity bias is explained by wishful thinking and thus perceptions of outcome desirability (study 3), and it does not manifest when an outcome is less relevant for the self, such as the case of outcomes with little consequence for the self (studies 4 and 5) or when estimating outcomes for others who are irrelevant to the self (study 6). Overall, the proximity bias we document deepens our understanding of the antecedents of probability judgments.

Academic scholars and practitioners uniformly suggest that off-premise signs such as billboards will be more effective if they are installed in high-traffic areas rather than low-traffic areas. In this research, we question the ubiquity of this claim and illustrate potential advantages of installing off-premise signs in low-traffic areas given that these environments also tend to be less cluttered (i.e., having fewer competing signs). Across two studies, we provide converging evidence that consumers evaluate a billboard more favorably when it is displayed by itself than when it is displayed next to other billboards. We show that the same billboard in a low-clutter (vs. high-clutter) location is judged to be more aesthetic, which in turn improves the overall evaluation of the billboard. We further delineate boundary conditions in which the benefits of a low-clutter environment are attenuated.

No abstract