How different are real and hypothetical decisions? Overestimation, contrast and assimilation in social interaction
Decision researchers conduct laboratory experiments of choice between real rewards, but also often rely on asking people to provide hypothetical answers to fictitious situations. Applying results from such studies to real-world situations requires understanding how decision making in cases involving real rewards correspond to decisions with hypothetical rewards. This article reports two key differences between hypothetical and real decisions in social dilemmas. First, hypothetical and real decisions cause different cognitive biases in social dilemmas: hypothetical judgements and choices stem from perceptual processes and cause contrast effects; while judgements and actions in real interaction are biased by assimilation processes involved in action selection and learning. Second, without the corrective real social interaction, people overestimate theirs and others propensity to act cooperatively. However, individuals are more confident in their predictions during real interaction, which suggests that such metacognitive judgments can predict actual behaviour and also signal when respondents provide biased responses. Overall, our results call into question established methodologies that rely on hypothetical answers, and indicate that people should be observed and measured in real or incentivised social interactions.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Matthew L. Locey & Bryan A. Jones & Howard Rachlin, 2011. "Real and hypothetical rewards in self-control and social discounting," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(6), pages 552-564, August.
- Drew Fudenberg & Jean Tirole, 1991. "Game Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262061414, January.
- Karen Blumenschein & Magnus Johannesson & Glenn C. Blomquist & Bengt Liljas & Richard M. O’Conor, 1998. "Experimental Results on Expressed Certainty and Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 65(1), pages 169-177, July.
- Camerer, Colin F & Hogarth, Robin M, 1999.
"The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework,"
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,
Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 7-42, December.
- Camerer, Colin F. & Hogarth, Robin M., 1999. "The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework," Working Papers 1059, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
- John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
- repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2004:i:6:p:1-13 is not listed on IDEAS
- Kuhberger, Anton & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Michael & Perner, Josef, 2002. "Framing decisions: Hypothetical and real," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1162-1175, November.
- Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
- Ivo Vlaev & Nick Chater, 2008. "Debiasing context effects in strategic decisions: Playing against a consistent opponent can correct perceptual but not reinforcement biases," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3(6), pages 463-475, August.
- Champ, Patricia A. & Bishop, Richard C. & Brown, Thomas C. & McCollum, Daniel W., 1997. "Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 151-162, June.
- James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
- Blumenschein, Karen & Johannesson, Magnus & Yokoyama, Krista K. & Freeman, Patricia R., 2001. "Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 441-457, May.
- Loomes, Graham, 2006. "(How) Can we value health, safety and the environment?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 713-736, December.
- Johannesson, Magnus & Blomquist, Glenn C. & Blumenschein, Karen & Johansson, Per-olov & Liljas, Bengt & O'Conor, Richard M., 1999. "Calibrating Hypothetical Willingness to Pay Responses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 21-32, April.
- Joseph Little & Robert Berrens, 2004. "Explaining Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-Analysis," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(6), pages 1-13. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)