Biases in the quantitative measurement of values for public decisions.

Baron, Jonathan

doi:10.1037/0033-2909.122.1.72

Cited by 144 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 104 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the last experiment (the one with the largest sample and the highest proportion of nonstudent subjects), omission bias was greater in older subjects. The cultural and educational differences in omission bias and protected values remain to be explored (but see Baron, Granato, Spranca, &Teubal, 1993, andLim &Baron, 1997).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Protected Values and Omission Bias

Ritov

Baron

1999

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

Self Cite

187

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protected values (PVs) are those that people think should not be traded off. Baron and Spranca (1997) proposed that such values result from rules concerning actions (as opposed to values for outcomes). This proposal implies that PVs should show a particularly large bias against harmful acts that undermine the value in question, as opposed to harmful omissions (omission bias). We found this correlation between PVs and omission bias in 3 experiments, using stimuli of the sort that we used before to demonstrate omission bias. In 2 experiments, we also found a weak tendency for PVs to be associated with lack of concern for the number of acts involved, which is analogous to earlier results showing an association with lack of concern for the quantity of outcomes. Finally, 1 experiment showed that some people are willing to sacrifice values to prevent losses more than they are willing to sacrifice these values for gains. ᭧

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We are not concerned here with whether people express their PVs in their behavior. Arguably, public policy should be based on what people say they want rather than on how they express their wants in their behavior (Baron, 1997). If their behavior disagrees with their true values, they may regret their behavior.…”

Section: Ritov and Baronmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protected Values and Omission Bias

Ritov

Baron

1999

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

Self Cite

187

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, research in the last decade consistently shows that people are insensitive to the magnitude of quantitative outcomes in their willingness to support public causes and in moral decisions (e.g., Baron, 1997;Desvousges et al 1993;Frederick & Fischhoff, 1998;Kahneman & Ritov, 1994). Particularly, Hsee & Rottenstreich's (2004) research supports the idea that subjective values are highly sensitive to the presence or absence of a stimulus (i.e., a change from 0 to some number) but are giving and volunteering in individualistic states (as compared with more collectivist states) in the United States, especially when the causes were compatible with individualistic causes.…”

Section: In Today's World Where Communication Is Open and Available Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Scope insensitivity in helping decisions: Is it a matter of culture and values?

Kogut¹,

Slovic²,

Västfjäll³

2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The singularity effect of identifiable victims refers to people's greater willingness to help a single concrete victim compared with a group of victims experiencing the same need. We present 3 studies exploring values and cultural sources of this effect. In the first study, the singularity effect was found only among Western Israelis and not among Bedouin participants (a more collectivist group). In Study 2, individuals with higher collectivist values were more likely to contribute to a group of victims. Finally, the third study demonstrates a more causal relationship between collectivist values and the singularity effect by showing that enhancing people's collectivist values using a priming manipulation produces similar donations to single victims and groups. Moreover, participants' collectivist preferences mediated the interaction between the priming conditions and singularity of the recipient. Implications for several areas of psychology and ways to enhance caring for groups in need are discussed.

show abstract

“…Further, we believe that well-constructed expressions of preference should be sensitive to manipulations that should affect them, given the purposes of measurement, e.g., the quantity of the good provided, and should be insensitive to manipulations that should not affect them, e.g., framing effects Ž Ž. Baron, 1997;Fischhoff, 1997; also see Hammond 1996 for a general discussion of . 5 how one judges the quality of a decision .…”

Section: Defining a Well-constructed Preferencementioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code

Payne

Bettman

Schkade³

2006

The Construction of Preference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A ''building code'' for preference measurement is needed in a world in which many expressions of preference are constructed when people are asked a valuation question. Construction of preferences Ž . means that preference measurement is best viewed as architecture building a set of values rather than Ž . as archaeology uncovering existing values . We describe potential faults in the process of preference Ž . construction, offer guidelines for measuring constructed preferences a ''building code'' to mitigate Ž these faults, and discuss how the code must be sensitive to the purpose of the valuation design vs.. prediction .

show abstract

Biases in the quantitative measurement of values for public decisions.

Cited by 144 publications

References 104 publications

Protected Values and Omission Bias

Protected Values and Omission Bias

Scope insensitivity in helping decisions: Is it a matter of culture and values?

Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About