Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias

Several factors affect attitudes toward ambiguity. What happens, however, when people are asked to exchange an ambiguous alternative in their possession for an unambiguous one? We present three experiments in which individuals preferred to retain the former. This status quo bias emerged both within- and between-subjects, with and without incentives, with different outcome distributions, and with endowments determined by both the experimenter and the participants themselves. Findings emphasize the need to account for the frames of reference under which evaluations of probabilistic information take place as well as modifications that should be incorporated into descriptive models of decision making.Ambiguity, risk, status quo bias, decision making, uncertainty, Leex

Risk, ambiguity and quantum decision theory

In the present article we use the quantum formalism to describe the effects of risk and ambiguity in decision theory. The main idea is that the probabilities in the classic theory of expected utility are estimated probabilities, and thus do not follow the classic laws of probability theory. In particular, we show that it is possible to use consistently the classic expected utility formula, where the probability associated to the events are computed with the equation of quantum interference. Thus we show that the correct utility of a lottery can be simply computed by adding to the classic expected utility a new corrective term, the uncertainty utility, directly connected with the quantum interference term.Comment: 1 figur

Are there three main subgroups within the patellofemoral pain population? A detailed characterisation study of 127 patients to help develop targeted Intervention (TIPPs)

• Background Current multimodal approaches for the management of non-specific patellofemoral pain are not optimal, however, targeted intervention for subgroups could improve patient outcomes. This study explores whether subgrouping of non-specific patellofemoral pain patients, using a series of low cost simple clinical tests, is possible. • Method The exclusivity and clinical importance of potential subgroups was assessed by applying à priori test thresholds (1 SD) from seven clinical tests in a sample of adult patients with non-specific patellofemoral pain. Hierarchical clustering and latent profile analysis, were used to gain additional insights into subgroups using data from the same clinical tests. • Results One hundred and thirty participants were recruited, 127 had complete data: 84 (66%) female, mean age 26 years (SD 5.7) and mean BMI 25.4 (SD 5.83), median (IQR) time between onset of pain and assessment was 24 (7-60) months. Potential subgroups defined by the à priori test thresholds were not mutually exclusive and patients frequently fell into multiple subgroups. Using hierarchical clustering and latent profile analysis three subgroups were identified using 6 of the 7 clinical tests. These subgroups were given the following nomenclature: (i) ‘strong’, (ii) ‘weak and tighter’, and (iii) ‘weak and pronated foot’. • Conclusions We conclude that three subgroups of patellofemoral patients may exist based on the results of six clinical tests which are feasible to perform in routine clinical practice. Further research is needed to validate these findings in other datasets and, if supported by external validation, to see if targeted interventions for these subgroups improve patient outcomes

Claims and confounds in economic experiments

We present a distinctiveness, relevance and plausibility (DRP) method for systematically evaluating potential experimental confounds. A claim is a statement being inferred on the basis of experimental data analysis. A potential confound is a statement providing a prima facie reason why the claim is not justified (other than internal weakness). In evaluating whether a potential confound is problematic, we can start by asking whether the potential confound is distinctive from the claim; we can then ask whether it is relevant for the claim; and we can conclude by asking whether it is plausible in the light of the evidence

Sentencing as craftwork and the binary epistemologies of the discretionary decision process

This article contends that it is time to take a critical look at a series of binary categories which have dominated the scholarly and reform epistemologies of the sentencing decision process. These binaries are: rules versus discretion; reason versus emotion; offence versus offender; normative principles versus incoherence; aggravating versus mitigating factors; and aggregate/tariff consistency versus individualized sentencing. These binaries underpin both the 'legal-rational' tradition (by which I mean a view of discretion as inherently suspect, a preference for the use of philosophy of punishment justifications and an explanation of the decision process through factors or variables), and also the more recent rise of the 'new penology'. Both approaches tend to rely on 'top-down' assumptions of change, which pay limited attention to the agency of penal workers. The article seeks to develop a conception of sentencing craftwork as a social and interpretive process.1 In so doing, it applies and develops a number of Kritzer's observations (in this issue) about craftwork to sentencing. These craftwork observations are: problem solving (applied to the rules - discretion and reason - emotion dichotomies); skills and techniques (normative penal principles and the use of cognitive analytical assumptions); consistency (tariff versus individualized sentencing); clientele (applied to account giving and the reality of decision making versus expression). By conceiving of sentencing as craftwork, the binary epistemologies of the sentencing decision process, which have dominated (and limited) the scholarly and policy sentencing imaginations, are revealed as dynamic, contingent, and synergistic. However, this is not to say that such binaries are no more than empty rhetoric concealing the reality of the decision process. Rather, these binaries serve as crucial legitimating reference points in the vocabulary of sentencing account giving