Can taking the perspective of an expert debias human decisions? The case for risky and delayed gains.
In several reported previously studies, participants increased their normative correctness after being instructed to think hypothetically, specifically taking the perspective of an expert or researcher (Beatty & Thompson 2012, Morsanyi & Handley 2012). The goal of this paper was to investiga...
Main Authors: | Michal eBialek, Przemysław eSawicki |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2014-09-01
|
Series: | Frontiers in Psychology |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00989/full |
Similar Items
-
Introducing conjoint analysis method into delayed lotteries studies: Its validity and time stability are higher than in adjusting
by: Michal eBialek, et al.
Published: (2015-01-01) -
Standing in Your Peer’s Shoes Hurts Your Feats: The Self-Others Discrepancy in Risk Attitude and Impulsivity
by: Wojciech eBiałaszek, et al.
Published: (2016-02-01) -
Normative arguments from experts and peers reduce delay discounting
by: Nicole Senecal, et al.
Published: (2012-09-01) -
Normative arguments from experts and peers reduce delay discounting
by: Nicole Senecal, et al.
Published: (2012-09-01) -
Delaying gratification depends on social trust
by: Laura eMichaelson, et al.
Published: (2013-06-01)