The desirability bias in predictions under aleatory and epistemic uncertainty

被引:3
|
作者
Windschitl, Paul D. [1 ,3 ]
Miller, Jane E. [1 ]
Park, Inkyung [1 ]
Rule, Shanon [1 ]
Clary, Ashley [1 ]
Smith, Andrew R. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Iowa, Iowa City, IA USA
[2] Appalachian State Univ, Boone, NC USA
[3] Univ Iowa, Dept Psychol & Brain Sci, Iowa City, IA 52242 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Desirability bias; Wishful thinking; Optimism; Uncertainty; Prediction; SOCIAL PREDICTION; WISHFUL THINKING; STATED EXPECTATIONS; PROBABILITY; OPTIMISM; EGOCENTRISM; ASSESSMENTS;
D O I
10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105254
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
The desirability bias (or wishful thinking effect) refers to when a person's desire regarding an event's occurrence has an unwarranted, optimistic influence on expectations about that event. Past experimental tests of this effect have been dominated by paradigms in which uncertainty about the target event is purely stochastic-i.e., involving only aleatory uncertainty. In six studies, we detected desirability biases using two new paradigms in which people made predictions about events for which their uncertainty was both aleatory and epistemic. We tested and meta-analyzed the impact of two potential moderators: the strength of evidence and the level of stochasticity. In support of the first moderator hypothesis, desirability biases were larger when people were making predictions about events for which the evidence for the possible outcomes was of similar strength (vs. not of similar strength). Regarding the second moderator hypothesis, the overall results did not support the notion that the desirability bias would be larger when the target event was higher vs. lower in stochasticity, although there was some significant evidence for moderation in one of the two paradigms. The findings broaden the generalizability of the desirability bias in predictions, yet they also reveal boundaries to an account of how stochasticity might provide affordances for optimistically biased predictions.
引用
收藏
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Aleatory and Epistemic Uncertainty Quantification
    Dutta, Palash
    Ali, Tazid
    [J]. APPLIED MATHEMATICS, 2015, 146 : 209 - 217
  • [2] Investor Behavior Under Epistemic vs. Aleatory Uncertainty
    Walters, Daniel J.
    Ulkumen, Gulden
    Tannenbaum, David
    Erner, Carsten
    Fox, Craig R.
    [J]. MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2023, 69 (05) : 2761 - 2777
  • [3] Robust Influence Maximization Under Both Aleatory and Epistemic Uncertainty
    Biswas, Tarun Kumer
    Abbasi, Alireza
    Chakrabortty, Ripon Kumar
    [J]. ACM TRANSACTIONS ON KNOWLEDGE DISCOVERY FROM DATA, 2023, 17 (07)
  • [4] On numerical representation of aleatory and epistemic uncertainty
    Schjaer-Jacobsen, Hans
    [J]. EURODYN 2014: IX INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS, 2014, : 3067 - 3071
  • [5] STOCHASTIC SIMULATION OF TURBINE ENGINE COMPONENT UNDER ALEATORY AND EPISTEMIC UNCERTAINTY
    McKeand, Austin M.
    Gorguluarslan, Recep M.
    Choi, Seung-Kyum
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASME INTERNATIONAL DESIGN ENGINEERING TECHNICAL CONFERENCES AND COMPUTERS AND INFORMATION IN ENGINEERING CONFERENCE, 2019, VOL 1, 2020,
  • [6] COLLISION AND RE-ENTRY ANALYSIS UNDER ALEATORY AND EPISTEMIC UNCERTAINTY
    Tardioli, Chiara
    Vasile, Massimiliano
    [J]. ASTRODYNAMICS 2015, 2016, 156 : 4205 - 4220
  • [7] Judgment Extremity and Accuracy Under Epistemic vs. Aleatory Uncertainty
    Tannenbaum, David
    Fox, Craig R.
    Ulkumen, Gulden
    [J]. MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2017, 63 (02) : 497 - 518
  • [8] Statistical model calibration and design optimization under aleatory and epistemic uncertainty
    Jung, Yongsu
    Jo, Hwisang
    Choo, Jeonghwan
    Lee, Ikjin
    [J]. RELIABILITY ENGINEERING & SYSTEM SAFETY, 2022, 222
  • [9] Mitigating versus Managing Epistemic and Aleatory Uncertainty
    Packard, Mark D.
    Clark, Brent B.
    [J]. ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, 2020, 45 (04): : 872 - 876
  • [10] ALEATORY AND EPISTEMIC MODELING OF UNCERTAINTY FOR QUANTITATIVE SIMULATIONS
    Schjaer-Jacobsen, Hans
    [J]. DECISION MAKING SYSTEMS IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, 2013, 8 : 373 - 383