IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0253751.html

This outcome feels right! subjective evaluations of coin flip outcomes reflect previously stated preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Mariela E Jaffé
  • Rainer Greifeneder

Abstract

When facing a difficult decision, individuals may rely on a coin flip to help them come to a conclusion. In some cases, however, individuals might not adhere to the coin’s outcome, but instead report liking or disliking the coin flip’s outcome, and may use this affective reaction to form their decision. In this manuscript we investigate the affective reaction towards the outcome of a coin flip and determine whether this affective reaction provides valid feedback in regards to individuals’ underlying preferences (Hypothesis 1). We further test whether flipping a coin results in a higher alignment between previous preferences and subsequent decisions (Hypothesis 2). We conducted three studies in the lab and with online samples. Throughout all studies we found support for the notion that the affective reactions regarding the coin flip’s outcome validly reflect previously indicated preferences or attractiveness ratings. Contrary to wide-spread expectations, however, we did not find reliable support for the notion that flipping a coin, compared to a control group, leads to decisions that are more in line with the previously stated preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Mariela E Jaffé & Rainer Greifeneder, 2021. "This outcome feels right! subjective evaluations of coin flip outcomes reflect previously stated preferences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(7), pages 1-19, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0253751
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253751
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0253751
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0253751&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0253751?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mariela E. Jaffé & Maria Douneva & Rainer Greifeneder, 2020. "Solve the dilemma by spinning a penny? On using random decision-making aids," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(4), pages 561-571, July.
    2. Gideon Keren & Karl H. Teigen, 2010. "Decisions by coin toss: Inappropriate but fair," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(2), pages 83-101, April.
    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. Konstantinos Georgalos & Indrajit Ray & Sonali SenGupta, 2020. "Nash versus coarse correlation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(4), pages 1178-1204, December.
    2. Elias Bouacida & Renaud Foucart, 2022. "Rituals of Reason," Working Papers 344119591, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    3. Dwenger, Nadja & Kübler, Dorothea & Weizsäcker, Georg, 2014. "Flipping a coin: Theory and evidence," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Market Behavior SP II 2013-201r, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    4. Gianluca Grimalda & Anirban Kar & Eugenio Proto, 2016. "Procedural fairness in lotteries assigning initial roles in a dynamic setting," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(4), pages 819-841, December.
    5. Schmidt, Robert J. & Trautmann, Stefan T., 2019. "Implementing (Un)fair Procedures? Favoritism and Process Fairness when Inequality is Inevitable," Discussion Paper 201-013, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    6. Dwenger, Nadja & Kübler, Dorothea & Weizsäcker, Georg, 2018. "Flipping a coin: Evidence from university applications," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 167, pages 240-250.
    7. Eliaz, Kfir & Rubinstein, Ariel, 2014. "On the fairness of random procedures," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 168-170.
    8. Thitithep Sitthiyot & Kanyarat Holasut, 2022. "A quantitative method for benchmarking fair income distribution," Papers 2202.00917, arXiv.org.
    9. Elias Bouacida & Renaud Foucart, 2020. "The acceptability of lotteries in allocation problems," Working Papers 301646245, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    10. Bouacida, Elias & Foucart, Renaud, 2025. "Rituals of reason: Experimental evidence on the social acceptability of lotteries in allocation problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 23-36.
    11. repec:jdm:journl:v:17:y:2022:i:4:p:768-796 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Grimalda, Gianluca & Kar, Anirban & Proto, Eugenio, "undated". "Everyone Wants a Chance : Initial Positions and Fairness in Ultimatum Games," Economic Research Papers 270638, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    13. Michał Białek & Jonathan Fugelsang & Ori Friedman, 2018. "Choosing victims: Human fungibility in moral decision-making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(5), pages 451-457, September.
    14. André Schmelzer, 2016. "Single versus Multiple Randomization in Matching Mechanisms," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2016_08, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics, revised Mar 2017.
    15. Konstantinos Georgalos & Sonali Sen Gupta & Indrajit Ray, 2017. "Coarse correlation and coordination in a game," Working Papers 151235570, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    16. Arvid Erlandsson & Amanda Lindkvist & Kajsa Lundqvist & Per A. Andersson & Stephan Dickert & Paul Slovic & Daniel Västfjäll, 2020. "Moral preferences in helping dilemmas expressed by matching and forced choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(4), pages 452-475, July.
    17. Mariela E. Jaffé & Maria Douneva & Rainer Greifeneder, 2020. "Solve the dilemma by spinning a penny? On using random decision-making aids," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(4), pages 561-571, July.
    18. Mariela E Jaffé & Leonie Reutner & Rainer Greifeneder, 2019. "Catalyzing decisions: How a coin flip strengthens affective reactions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-14, August.
    19. Li, Jing, 2023. "I’m feeling lucky: How randomly drawn suggested donations affect donation choice," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    20. Georgalos, Konstantinos & Ray, Indrajit & Gupta, Sonali Sen, 2019. "Nash vs. Coarse Correlation," Cardiff Economics Working Papers E2019/3, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Economics Section.
    21. repec:awi:wpaper:661 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0253751. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.