Opportunity Neglect: An Aversion to Low-Probability Gains

被引:1
|
作者
Prinsloo, Emily [1 ]
Barasz, Kate [2 ]
John, Leslie K. [1 ]
Norton, Michael, I [1 ]
机构
[1] Harvard Univ, Harvard Business Sch, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
[2] Univ Ramon Llull, ESADE, Barcelona, Spain
关键词
risk taking; decision making; choice; motivation; open data; open materials; preregistered; PREFERENCE REVERSALS; SEPARATE EVALUATIONS; PROSPECT-THEORY; RISK; DECISION; UNCERTAINTY; DEFAULTS; JOINT;
D O I
10.1177/09567976221091801
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Seven preregistered studies (N = 2,890, adult participants) conducted in the field, in the lab, and online documented opportunity neglect: a tendency to reject opportunities with low probability of success even when they come with little or no objective cost (e.g., time, money, reputation). Participants rejected a low-probability opportunity in an everyday context (Study 1). Participants also rejected incentive-compatible gambles with positive expected value-for both goods (Study 2) and money (Studies 3-7)-even with no possibility of monetary loss and nontrivial rewards (e.g., a 1% chance at $99). Participants rejected low-probability opportunities more frequently than high-probability opportunities with equal expected value (Study 3). Although taking some real-life opportunities comes with costs, we show that people are even willing to incur costs to opt out of low-probability opportunities (Study 4). Opportunity neglect can be mitigated by highlighting that rejecting an opportunity is equivalent to choosing a zero probability of success (Studies 6-7).
引用
收藏
页码:1857 / 1866
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Resiliency Assessment and Enhancement of Renewable Dominated Edge of Grid Under High-Impact Low-Probability Events-A Review
    Miah, Md Sazal
    Shah, Rakibuzzaman
    Amjady, Nima
    Surinkaew, Tossaporn
    Islam, Syed
    IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, 2024, 60 (05) : 7578 - 7598
  • [32] A Comparison of Multivariate Statistical Methods for Estimating Expected Consequences for Low-Probability and High-Consequence Incidents
    Desai, S.
    Lim, G. J.
    Karson, M.
    HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS IN MANUFACTURING & SERVICE INDUSTRIES, 2010, 20 (03) : 233 - 250
  • [33] Status Gains versus Status Losses: Loss Aversion and Deviance
    Thomas, Kyle J.
    Nguyen, Holly
    JUSTICE QUARTERLY, 2022, 39 (04) : 871 - 896
  • [35] The role of visual attention in opportunity cost neglect and consideration
    Smith, Stephanie M.
    Spiller, Stephen A.
    Krajbich, Ian
    COGNITION, 2025, 261
  • [36] Opportunity Cost Neglect Attenuates the Effect of Choices on Preferences
    Greenberg, Adam Eric
    Spiller, Stephen A.
    PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 2016, 27 (01) : 103 - 113
  • [37] No evidence of risk aversion or foreign language effects in incentivized verbal probability gambles
    Milczarski, Wojciech
    Borkowska, Anna
    Bialek, Michal
    JUDGMENT AND DECISION MAKING, 2025, 20
  • [38] Effort Expenditure Decreases Risk Aversion When Dealing With Gains but Not Losses
    Dora, Jonas
    Inzlicht, Michael
    COLLABRA-PSYCHOLOGY, 2025, 11 (01)
  • [39] The Role of Omission Neglect in Response to Non-Gains and Non-Losses in Gasoline Price Fluctuations
    Bechkoff, Jennifer
    Krishnan, Vijaykumar
    Niculescu, Mihai
    Kohne, Mary Lou
    Palmatier, Robert W.
    Kardes, Frank R.
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2009, 39 (05) : 1191 - 1200
  • [40] Opportunity cost neglect in public policy
    Persson, Emil
    Tinghog, Gustav
    JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR & ORGANIZATION, 2020, 170 : 301 - 312