Free will, temptation, and self-control: We must believe in free will, we have no choice (Isaac B. Singer).

Baumeister, Sparks, Stillman, and Vohs (2007) sketch a theory of free will as the humanability to exert self-control. Self-control can produce goal-directed behavior, which free will conceptualized as random behavior cannot. We question whether consumer psychology can shed light on the ontological question of whether free will exists. We suggest that it is more fruitful for consumer psychology to examine consumers' belief in freewill. Specifically, we propose that this belief arises from consumers' phenomenological experience of exercising self-control in the face of moral or intertemporal conflicts of will. Based on extant literature in philosophy, psychology, and economics, we offer both a narrower conceptualization of the nature of self-control problems and a more general conceptualization of self-control strategies, involving not only will power but also precommitment. We conclude with a discussion of the consequences of consumers' belief in free will.

How AI can learn from the law: putting humans in the loop only on appeal

While the literature on putting a “human in the loop” in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) has grown significantly, limited attention has been paid to how human expertise ought to be combined with AI/ML judgments. This design question arises because of the ubiquity and quantity of algorithmic decisions being made today in the face of widespread public reluctance to forgo human expert judgment. To resolve this conflict, we propose that human expert judges be included via appeals processes for review of algorithmic decisions. Thus, the human intervenes only in a limited number of cases and only after an initial AI/ML judgment has been made. Based on an analogy with appellate processes in judiciary decision-making, we argue that this is, in many respects, a more efficient way to divide the labor between a human and a machine. Human reviewers can add more nuanced clinical, moral, or legal reasoning, and they can consider case-specific information that is not easily quantified and, as such, not available to the AI/ML at an initial stage. In doing so, the human can serve as a crucial error correction check on the AI/ML, while retaining much of the efficiency of AI/ML’s use in the decision-making process. In this paper, we develop these widely applicable arguments while focusing primarily on examples from the use of AI/ML in medicine, including organ allocation, fertility care, and hospital readmission

Advances in Consumer Research

We examine how redistribution preferences affect the value of status consumption: people who favor less (more) fiscal redistribution value status consumption more as a meaningful signal because they consider income more deserved (i.e., a stronger belief in a just world). Data come from a national consumer survey and two experiments

Option Attachment: When Deliberating Makes Choosing Feel like Losing

Common sense suggests that consumers make more satisfying decisions as they consider their options more closely. Yet we argue that such close consideration can have undesirable consequences because it may induce attachment to the optionsa sense of prefactual ownership of the choice options. When consumers then select one option, they effectively lose this prefactual possession of the other, nonchosen options. This yields a feeling of discomfort ("choosing feels like losing") and an increase in the attractiveness of the forgone option, compared to its appeal before the choice. A series of nine experiments provides evidence of this phenomenon and support for our explanation.

On the Perceived Value of Money: The Reference Dependence of Currency Numerosity Effects

Money illusion research shows that the nominal (face) value of money affects consumer perceptions of its real value. Recent mixed findings on consumer valuations in different currencies suggest that the underlying anchoring and adjustment processes are complex. We develop a framework to identify boundary conditions that specify the direction of anchoring effects on valuations in different currencies. Consumers anchor on the numerosity of the nominal difference between prices and salient referents (e.g., budgets) when evaluating transactions. Support for our framework comes from a series of experiments that evoke different reference standards. We discuss implications and opportunities for future research. (c) 2007 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc..