IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v118y2012i2p216-225.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Self-selection bias in hypothesis comparison

Author

Listed:
  • Whitman, Jennifer C.
  • Woodward, Todd S.

Abstract

Here we investigated whether, given equivalent supporting evidence, we judge self-selected hypotheses differently from those selected by an external source. On each trial of a probabilistic reasoning task requiring no retrieval from memory, participants rated the probability of a focal hypothesis, relative to two alternatives. The focal hypothesis was either selected by the participant or by a computer. In four experiments, self-selected focal hypotheses were judged to be more probable than externally selected ones, despite equivalent supporting evidence. This self-selection bias was independent of level of difficulty in selecting the focal hypothesis (cognitive effort) and of whether evidence was gradually accumulated or all presented instantaneously. These results suggest that the cognitive operations involved in selecting a hypothesis lead to assignment of higher probability to that hypothesis, and that this effect is independent of hypothesis selection difficulty and of the rate of evidence accumulation.

Suggested Citation

  • Whitman, Jennifer C. & Woodward, Todd S., 2012. "Self-selection bias in hypothesis comparison," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 216-225.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:118:y:2012:i:2:p:216-225
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.02.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597812000210
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.02.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ronis, David L. & Yates, J. Frank, 1987. "Components of probability judgment accuracy: Individual consistency and effects of subject matter and assessment method," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 193-218, October.
    2. Bond, Samuel D. & Carlson, Kurt A. & Meloy, Margaret G. & Russo, J. Edward & Tanner, Robin J., 2007. "Information distortion in the evaluation of a single option," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 240-254, March.
    3. Andreas Glöckner & Tilmann Betsch, 2008. "Multiple-Reason Decision Making Based on Automatic Processing," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2008_12, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    4. Sniezek, Janet A. & Paese, Paul W. & Switzer, Fred S., 1990. "The effect of choosing on confidence in choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 264-282, August.
    5. Sieck, Winston R. & Merkle, Edgar C. & Van Zandt, Trisha, 2007. "Option fixation: A cognitive contributor to overconfidence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 68-83, May.
    6. Edward J. Russo & Kurt A. Carlson & Margaret G. Meloy & Kevyn Yong, 2008. "The goal of consistency as a cause of information distortion," Post-Print hal-00481326, HAL.
    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. Bonaccio, Silvia & Dalal, Reeshad S., 2006. "Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 127-151, November.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:8:p:711-721 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Mischkowski, Dorothee & Glöckner, Andreas & Lewisch, Peter, 2021. "Information search, coherence effects, and their interplay in legal decision making," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    4. McKenzie, Craig R. M., 1997. "Underweighting Alternatives and Overconfidence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 141-160, August.
    5. Andreas Glockner & Arndt Broder, 2014. "Cognitive integration of recognition information and additional cues in memory-based decisions," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(1), pages 35-50, January.
    6. Michailova, Julija, 2010. "Development of the overconfidence measurement instrument for the economic experiment," MPRA Paper 26384, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Windschitl, Paul D. & Scherer, Aaron M. & Smith, Andrew R. & Rose, Jason P., 2013. "Why so confident? The influence of outcome desirability on selective exposure and likelihood judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 73-86.
    8. Chaxel, Anne-Sophie & Wiggins, Catherine & Xie, Jieru, 2018. "The impact of a limited time perspective on information distortion," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 35-46.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:1:p:35-50 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Michailova, Julija, 2010. "Development of the overconfidence measurement instrument for the economic experiment," MPRA Paper 26384, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Andreas Glockner & Tilmann Betsch, 2011. "The Empirical content of theories in judgment and decision making: Shortcomings and remedies," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 711-721, December.
    12. DeKay, Michael L. & Patiño-Echeverri, Dalia & Fischbeck, Paul S., 2009. "Distortion of probability and outcome information in risky decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 79-92, May.
    13. Simnett, Roger, 1996. "The effect of information selection, information processing and task complexity on predictive accuracy of auditors," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 21(7-8), pages 699-719.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:6:p:662-677 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Seth A. Miller & Michael L. DeKay & Eric R. Stone & Clare M. Sorenson, 2013. "Assessing the sensitivity of information distortion to four potential influences in studies of risky choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(6), pages 662-677, November.
    16. Gierl, Heribert & Stiegelmayr, Karin, 2012. "Erzeugt nicht-diagnostische Information einen Reihenfolge-Effekt im Fall der attributweisen Informationspräsentation?," Die Unternehmung - Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 66(2), pages 127-152.
    17. Sieck, Winston R. & Merkle, Edgar C. & Van Zandt, Trisha, 2007. "Option fixation: A cognitive contributor to overconfidence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 68-83, May.
    18. Browne, Glenn J. & Curley, Shawn P. & Benson, P. George, 1999. "The Effects of Subject-Defined Categories on Judgmental Accuracy in Confidence Assessment Tasks, , , , , , , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 134-154, November.
    19. Thunström, Linda & Nordström, Jonas & Shogren, Jason F., 2015. "Certainty and overconfidence in future preferences for food," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 101-113.
    20. Katja H. Brunk & Cara Boer, 2020. "How do Consumers Reconcile Positive and Negative CSR-Related Information to Form an Ethical Brand Perception? A Mixed Method Inquiry," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 161(2), pages 443-458, January.
    21. Moshe Glickman & Orian Sharoni & Dino J Levy & Ernst Niebur & Veit Stuphorn & Marius Usher, 2019. "The formation of preference in risky choice," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-25, August.
    22. Ryvkin, Dmitry & Krajč, Marian & Ortmann, Andreas, 2012. "Are the unskilled doomed to remain unaware?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 1012-1031.
    23. Nina Horstmann & Andrea Ahlgrimm & Andreas Glöckner, 2009. "How Distinct are Intuition and Deliberation? An Eye-Tracking Analysis of Instruction-Induced Decision Modes," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2009_10, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.

    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:eee:jobhdp:v:118:y:2012:i:2:p:216-225. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    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.