N. Harvey
Collecting information: optimizing outcomes, screening options, or facilitating discrimination?
Harvey, N.; Bolger, F.
Authors
F. Bolger
Abstract
Collection of information prior to a decision may be integrated into a compensatory choice process; if it is, the information packet that is collected should be the one that produces the highest net gain. Alternatively,information may be collected in order to screen out options that fail to meet minimum standards; if this is the case, people should not choose options on which they have not collected available information. We tested these and other predictions from the two approaches in four experiments. Participants were given specific information about three attributes of each choice option but only probabilistic information about a fourth one. They rated attractiveness of options, decidedwhether to collect specific information about the fourth attribute of each one, rated options again, and then selected one of them. Data were consistent with neither of the above approaches. Instead they suggested that people collect information in order to facilitate their ability to discriminate between the attractiveness of options.
Citation
Harvey, N., & Bolger, F. (2001). Collecting information: optimizing outcomes, screening options, or facilitating discrimination?. Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, 54(1), 269-301. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980042000110
Journal Article Type | Article |
---|---|
Publication Date | Feb 1, 2001 |
Deposit Date | Mar 23, 2007 |
Journal | The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A - Human Experimental Psychology |
Print ISSN | 0272-4987 |
Electronic ISSN | 1464-0740 |
Publisher | Psychology Press |
Peer Reviewed | Peer Reviewed |
Volume | 54 |
Issue | 1 |
Pages | 269-301 |
DOI | https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980042000110 |
Public URL | https://durham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1624810 |
You might also like
Asymmetric dominance and phantom decoy effects in games
(2007)
Journal Article
An empirical test of the relative validity of expert and lay judgements of risk
(2002)
Journal Article
Downloadable Citations
About Durham Research Online (DRO)
Administrator e-mail: dro.admin@durham.ac.uk
This application uses the following open-source libraries:
SheetJS Community Edition
Apache License Version 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/)
PDF.js
Apache License Version 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/)
Font Awesome
SIL OFL 1.1 (http://scripts.sil.org/OFL)
MIT License (http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html)
CC BY 3.0 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
Powered by Worktribe © 2024
Advanced Search