The cost of asking: How evaluations bias subsequent judgments.

Abstract

A novel decision bias, called the evaluation bias (EB), was reported by White et al. (2014). In a sequence of two stimuli of opposite affective valence, evaluating the first stimulus leads to a more contrasting evaluation for the second one, compared to when the first stimulus is just observed. The EB is consistent with a long tradition of constructive influences or decision biases in questionnaire judgments. The prediction of the EB was based on the application of a quantum probability model, taking advantage of the unique role of evaluations in quantum probability. In the present work, we develop the quantum model so as to examine whether similar predictions are possible in the context of real questionnaires, where precise control over the relative valence of stimulus pairs is impossible. It is shown that an EB prediction can be extracted and we test this prediction in an organizational opinion survey, administered to a range of organizations across four experiments (total N = 868 and 84 organizations) and with two different languages. In all experiments, there was clear evidence for an EB. We examine the result with the quantum model and Hogarth and Einhorn's (1992) belief-adjustment model. Both models can broadly capture the empirical findings and so offer promise for providing a formal understanding of constructive influences.

Constructive Biases in Clinical Judgment

“…This is what motivates the use of quantum theory in the present work. Quantum theory could describe fairly naturally previous demonstrations of the evaluation bias (White et al, 2014(White et al, , 2015(White et al, , 2020.…”

“…Thus, for the same two stimuli presented in the same order, judging the first stimulus would alter participants’ perception for the second one in a systematic way. However, White et al.’s (2014) work, as well as most related research, concerns low stakes decision situations, with college undergraduate participants (an exception is White, Pothos, & Jarrett, 2020). It is possible that judgment biases, such as the evaluation bias, disappear when the judgment situation sufficiently engages thoughtful, considerate decision processes (Kahneman, 2001).…”

What Is Rational and Irrational in Human Decision Making

“…More generally, quantum theory has been employed in analogous ways in several cases in cognitive science, including in conceptual combination [42], perception [43], memory [44], question order effects [45] and of course decision making [46][47][48][49][50]. Quantum cognitive mod-els initially focussed on re-explaining puzzling findings, which have resisted compelling classical explanations, like the conjunction fallacy; more recently, the focus has been on the generative potential of quantum models, such as constructive influences [46,49], a quantum Zeno effect [50], the QQ equality [45], etc. (overviews in [37,51,52]).…”

Sensitivity to Context in Human Interactions

“…Social psychologists have been aware of such processes for a long time [36]. The added value from quantum models is that in quantum theory there is a specific requirement for how the state ought to change as a result of measurements (in behavior, decisions) and various researchers have taken advantage of these processes to build cognitive models (e.g., [37,38]). Of course, as outlined above, there have also been behavioral results indicative of sensitivity to context, for which the Bell framework and corresponding quantum models have been invoked to construct relevant theory (e.g., [23,24]).…”

“…Of course, as outlined above, there have also been behavioral results indicative of sensitivity to context, for which the Bell framework and corresponding quantum models have been invoked to construct relevant theory (e.g., [23,24]). Quantum cognitive models have had good generative value, for example, in terms of anticipating biases from prior decisions [38] or a surprising constraint for question order effects [39].…”