Does counting change what counts? Quantification fixation biases decision- making
成果类型:
Article
署名作者:
Chang, Linda W.; Kirgios, Erika L.; Mullainathan, Sendhil; Milkman, Katherine L.
署名单位:
University of Pennsylvania; University of Chicago; Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT); Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
刊物名称:
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ISSN/ISSBN:
0027-14613
DOI:
10.1073/pnas.2400215121
发表日期:
2024-11-12
关键词:
preference reversals
separate evaluations
fluency
specifications
numeracy
joint
摘要:
People often rely on numeric metrics to make decisions and form judgments. Numbers can be difficult to process, leading to their underutilization, but they also uniquely suited to making comparisons. Do people decide differently when dimensions of a choice are quantified and others are not? We explore this question across 21 preregistered experiments (8 in the main text, N = 9,303; 13 in supplement, N = 13,936) involving managerial, policy, and consumer decisions. Participants face choices that involve tradeoffs (e.g., choosing between employees, one of whom has a higher likelihood of advancement but lower likelihood of retention), and randomize which dimension of each tradeoff is presented numerically and which presented qualitatively (using verbal estimates, discrete visualizations, or continuous visualizations). We show that people systematically shift their preferences toward options that dominate on tradeoff dimensions conveyed numerically-a pattern dub quantification fixation. Further, we show that quantification fixation has cial consequences-it emerges in incentive- compatible hiring tasks and in charitable donation decisions. We identify one key mechanism that underlies quantification fixation and moderates its strength: When making comparative judgments, which essential to tradeoff decisions, numeric information is more fluent than non- numeric information. Our findings suggest that when we count, we change what counts.