IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mpg/wpaper/2011_21.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Has The World Changed? My Neighbor Might Know Effects of Social Context on Routine Deviation

Author

Listed:
  • Tilman Betsch

    (University of Erfurt, Department of Psychology)

  • Stefanie Lindow

    (University of Erfurt, Department of Psychology)

  • Christoph Engel

    (Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods)

  • Corinna Ulshöfer

    (University of Bern, Switzerland)

  • Janet Kleber

    (Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods)

Abstract

In two experiments we studied the effects of behavioral models on routine deviation decisions in observers. Participants repeatedly chose among four card-deck lotteries together with a human model (confederate, Exp. 1) or a non-human model (computer, Exp. 2) that made correct decisions in the majority of the trials. In a learning phase, participants acquired a choice routine (preferring one deck over others). In a subsequent test phase, participants had to adapt to changes in the payoff structure that required them to deviate from their routine. We found a strong tendency to maintain the routine despite negative feedback (routine effect). In a social situation (Exp.1), models decrease routine effects more intensely than in non social situations (Exp.2). The process of adaptation follows a belief updating process. Results indicate that the model effect is not due to an increase of the sample of relevant information nor to application of a simply copy heuristic. Rather, deviation models may provide a cue for change that fosters reevaluation of the situation in the observer.

Suggested Citation

  • Tilman Betsch & Stefanie Lindow & Christoph Engel & Corinna Ulshöfer & Janet Kleber, 2011. "Has The World Changed? My Neighbor Might Know Effects of Social Context on Routine Deviation," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2011_21, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    • Handle: RePEc:mpg:wpaper:2011_21
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.coll.mpg.de/pdf_dat/2011_21online.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:7:p:493-500 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Cameron,A. Colin & Trivedi,Pravin K., 2005. "Microeconometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521848053.
    3. Kok Teo & T. Cheng & Xiaoqiang Cai & Xiaoqi Yang, 2005. "Preface," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 133(1), pages 17-20, January.
    4. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    5. Baron, Jonathan & Ritov, Ilana, 1994. "Reference Points and Omission Bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 475-498, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Inman, J.J. & Zeelenberg, M., 2002. "Regret in repeat purchase versus switching decisions : The attenuating role of decision justifiability," Other publications TiSEM 44060120-bd30-40e0-a97f-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    2. James C. Cox & Maroš Servátka & Radovan Vadovic, 2012. "Status Quo Effects in Fairness Games: Reciprocal Responses to Acts of Commission vs. Acts of Omission," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2012-03, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, revised Mar 2016.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:3:p:287-296 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Ahmad Barirani & Randolph Sloof & Mirjam van Praag, 2017. "The Origins and Extent of Entrepreneurial Action-Orientedness: An Experimental Study," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 17-006/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    5. Campbell Pryor & Amy Perfors & Piers D L Howe, 2019. "Conformity to the descriptive norms of people with opposing political or social beliefs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-16, July.
    6. James C. Cox & Maroš Servátka & Radovan Vadovič, 2012. "Status Quo Effects in Fairness Games: Acts of Commission vs. Acts of Omission," Working Papers in Economics 12/01, University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance.
    7. Di Guida, Sibilla & Marchiori, Davide & Erev, Ido, 2012. "Decisions among defaults and the effect of the option to do nothing," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 790-793.
    8. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Moon, Amanda, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-17.
    9. repec:dau:papers:123456789/4260 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Douglas Dow & Peter Liesch & Lawrence Welch, 2018. "Inertia and Managerial Intentionality: Extending the Uppsala Model," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 58(3), pages 465-493, June.
    11. Shanley, James & Grossman, Philip J., 2007. "Paradise to parking lots: Creation versus maintenance of a public good," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 523-536, August.
    12. Connolly, Terry & Ordonatez, Lisa D. & Coughlan, Richard, 1997. "Regret and Responsibility in the Evaluation of Decision Outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 73-85, April.
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:3:p:214-235 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Avital Moshinsky & Maya Bar-Hillel, 2004. "Loss Aversion and Status-Quo Label Bias," Discussion Paper Series dp373, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, revised Apr 2007.
    15. Iris Bohnet & Stephan Meier, 2005. "Deciding to distrust," Public Policy Discussion Paper 05-4, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    16. Ola Kvaløy & Miguel Luzuriaga & Trond E. Olsen, 2017. "A trust game in loss domain," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(4), pages 860-877, December.
    17. Rogers, Todd & Bazerman, Max H., 2008. "Future lock-in: Future implementation increases selection of 'should' choices," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 1-20, May.
    18. George A. Gonzalez, 2016. "Transforming Energy: Solving Climate Change with Technology Policy . New York : Cambridge University Press . 360 pages. ISBN 9781107614970, $29.99 paperback. Anthony Patt , 2015 ," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 33(1), pages 111-113, January.
    19. Jean-Francois Gajewski & Marco Heimann & Luc Meunier, 2022. "Nudges in SRI: The Power of the Default Option," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 177(3), pages 547-566, May.
    20. James C. Cox & Maroš Servátka & Radovan Vadovič, 2017. "Status quo effects in fairness games: reciprocal responses to acts of commission versus acts of omission," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(1), pages 1-18, March.
    21. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:1:p:33-41 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Patt , Anthony G. & Schroter, Dagmar, 2007. "Perceptions of environmental risks in Mozambique : implications for the success of adaptation and coping strategies," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4417, The World Bank.
    23. Eyal Ert & Ido Erev, 2013. "On the descriptive value of loss aversion in decisions under risk: Six clarifications," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(3), pages 214-235, May.
    24. Ioannis Evangelidis & Jonathan Levav, 2019. "Process Utility and the Effect of Inaction Frames," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2328-2341, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Experienced-based decision making; routine; habit; adaptation; social influence; Bayesian updating; novelty;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mpg:wpaper:2011_21. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Marc Martin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mppggde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.