About: The loss‐bet paradox: Actuaries, accountants, and other numerate people rate numerically inferior gambles as superior

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- owl:sameAs
- Inference Rule:

About: The loss‐bet paradox: Actuaries, accountants, and other numerate people rate numerically inferior gambles as superior Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : schema:ScholarlyArticle, within Data Space : covidontheweb.inria.fr associated with source document(s)

Attributes	Values
type	Academic Article research paper schema:ScholarlyArticle
isDefinedBy	Covid-on-the-Web dataset
title	The loss‐bet paradox: Actuaries, accountants, and other numerate people rate numerically inferior gambles as superior
Creator	Peters, Ellen Tiede, Kevin Fennema, \|
source	PMC
abstract	Psychologists have convincingly demonstrated that preferences are not always stable and, instead, are often “constructed” based on information available in the judgment or decision context. In 4 studies with experts (accountants and actuaries in Studies 1 and 2, respectively) and a diverse lay population (Studies 3 and 4), the evidence was consistent with the highly numerate being more likely than the less numerate to construct their preferences by rating a numerically inferior bet as superior (i.e., the bets effect). Thus, the effect generalizes beyond a college student sample, and preference construction differs by numeracy. Contrary to prior thinking about preference construction, however, high expertise and high ability (rather than low) consistently related to the paradoxical phenomenon. Results across studies including Study 3's experimental modifications of the task supported the hypothesized number comparison process (and not a lack of expertise with monetary outcomes and probabilities or numeracy‐related differences in attention to numbers) as the effect's underlying cause. The bets effect was not attenuated by Study 4's instructions to think about what would be purchased with bet winnings. Task results combined with free‐response coding supported the notion that highly numerate participants have a systematic and persistent inclination for doing simple and complex number operations that drive their judgments (even after controlling for nonnumeric intelligence). Implications for 3 types of dual‐process theories are discussed. The results were inconsistent with default‐interventionist theories, consistent or unclear with respect to fuzzy trace theory, and consistent with interactive theories.
has issue date	2018-06-05(xsd:dateTime)
bibo:doi	10.1002/bdm.2085
bibo:pmid	32313368
has license	no-cc
sha1sum (hex)	f19628a5b7b676bc322f080f8eb4431eeac1d8a9
schema:url	https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2085
resource representing a document's title	The loss‐bet paradox: Actuaries, accountants, and other numerate people rate numerically inferior gambles as superior
has PubMed Central identifier	PMC7161831
has PubMed identifier	32313368
schema:publication	J Behav Decis Mak
resource representing a document's body	covid:f19628a5b7b676bc322f080f8eb4431eeac1d8a9#body_text
is schema:about of	named entity 'population' named entity 'Actuaries' named entity 'general intelligence' named entity 'priming' named entity '5.2' »more»

Faceted Search & Find service v1.13.91 as of Mar 24 2020

Alternative Linked Data Documents: Sponger | ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3229 as of Jul 10 2020, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Single-Server Edition (94 GB total memory)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2025 OpenLink Software