Anchoring Heuristic

U članku se opisuju noviji eksperimentalni nalazi vezani uz heuristiku sidrenja kao i modeli koji ih objašnjavaju. Heuristika sidrenja označava jedan od načina na koji ljudi donose odluke u nedostatku informacija i/ili vremena, a podrazumijeva korištenje standarda usporedbe kako bi se došlo do željene procjene. S obzirom na pretpostavljenu široku upotrebu ove heuristike, u članku se istražuju teoretska objašnjenja, razjašnjavaju razlozi zbog kojih je utjecaj te heuristike nedostupan svijesti te kako umanjiti njome izazvanu pristranost u razmišljanju. Osim standardnog nacrta kojim se ispituje ovaj fenomen opisani su i dokazi prema kojima sidro može vršiti svoj utjecaj i kad se ne dovodi u direktnu vezu s procjenom, čak i kada je percipirano nesvjesnim putem. Najnoviji skup istraživanja pak pokazuje da se heuristika sidrenja, prvotno zamišljena kao jedinstveni mehanizam, zapravo može podijeliti na dva bitno različita procesa. Zaključno se razmatraju kakve bi implikacije ovaj razvoj u istraživanjima mogao imati za područje socijalne kognicije općenito.The article is a summary of recent experimental data on anchoring heuristic and models that seek to explain it. Anchoring heuristic represents one of the mechanisms of decision making in situations of limited information or time, by using a comparison standard called – an anchor. Given the supposed wide usage of this heuristic, authors explore the unconscious character of the heuristic and ways of making its biasing effects less prominent. Apart from the standard experimental design in which anchor is directly connected to the judgment in question, evidence shows that people can be anchored indirectly, even when the anchor is perceived unconsciously. Newest data show that anchoring effect should be explained by two distinct processes. In the concluding remarks, authors consider broader implications of anchoring for the field of social cognition

Two Paradigms Explaining Cognitive Bias in Decision-Making: "Behavioral Economics" and "Ecological Rationality"

U ovom radu autori navode temeljne ideje dvaju smjerova ili paradigmi istraživanja na području tzv. bihevioralne ekonomije, odnosno istraživanja heuristika i pristranosti. Prva je paradigma (bihevioralna ekonomija) proizašla iz empirijskih nalaza koji su proturječili modelima teorije racionalnog odlučivanja "klasične" ekonomije. Autori pobliže opisuju teoriju racionalnog odlučivanja (TRO) kako bi pokazali osnovne empirijske nalaze i postavke "bihevioralnih ekonomista", ponajprije nobelovca D. Kahnemana i A. Tverskog, prema kojima su ljudi iracionalni kada se "u uvjetima ograničene racionalnosti" služe predvidljivim i vrlo tipičnim pristranostima, odnosno kada se "odmiču" od normi racionalnosti utvrđenih u TRO. Druga paradigma istraživanja heuristika i pristranosti, G. Gigerenzera i njegovih suradnika, pokazuje kako su ljudi opremljeni dovoljno dobrim sredstvima (heuristikama) za brzo i jednostavno odlučivanje, ali dokazuje da se pogreške u odlučivanju, za razliku od tvrdnji bihevioralnih ekonomista, ne pojavljuju zbog "nedovoljnog razmišljanja" i pogrešnoga procesuiranja nego zbog pogrešne primjene danih mentalnih sposobnosti (heuristika) u neadekvatnim situacijama.In this paper the authors review a variety of empirical findings, research directions and tenets of two paradigms in heuristics and bias research: of behavioral economics (following Kahneman and Tversky\u27s findings), and of the "less-is-more", i.e. ecological rationality research (which follows findings by G. Gigerenzer). While explaining empirical research in behavioral economics (BE), the authors describe a "classical economic" model of rationality, the rational choice theory, which is contradicted by results in behavioral economics. BE researchers use rational choice theory as a norm, so their findings are typically explained or documented by "insufficient adjustment" to, or by a bias from the rational norm. The second paradigm, however typically documents "sufficiently good" decisions made while using "simple, frugal and smart" heuristics, such as "take-the- -best". It claims that "irrationality" in decision-making stems from the inappropriate application of the given heuristics in ecologically unsuitable situations

Sunk Cost Effect

Normativni principi u ekonomiji, opisani teorijom racionalnog izbora, pretpostavljaju da odluke donosimo isključivo na temelju budućih dobitaka i gubitaka. Međutim, rezultati niza istraživanja pokazali su kako na naše odluke utječu nepovratni troškovi, odnosno ulaganja iz prošlosti, ishod kojih se ne može promijeniti. Ova pojava poznata je pod nazivom efekt izgubljenoga troška (sunk cost effect) i očituje se kroz dva oblika. Dilema izbora želja je da pošto-poto iskoristimo ono što smo platili, a prilikom odlučivanja o nastavku ulaganja imamo tendenciju dodatno ulagati u projekt koji ide prema gubitku. U ovom radu opisana su oba oblika efekta izgubljenoga troška i izneseni nalazi relevantnih istraživanja. Objašnjena je upotrijebljena metodologija i njezine kritike, a razmotrene su razlike između ekonomskih i psiholoških teoretskih objašnjenja. Na kraju rada navode se implikacije navedenih nalaza u rukovoditeljskoj praksi.Normative economic principles, as described in the theory of rational choice, assume that we base our decisions solely on future gains and losses. However, the results of several lines of research show that our decisions are influenced by sunk costs, past investments that are not redeemable. This phenomenon is called the sunk cost effect and it comes in two forms. In choice dilemmas we want to use what we have paid disregarding possible additional costs. When deciding whether to continue an investment, people tend to financially support a failing project. In this paper, both types of sunk cost effects are described and results of relevant research are reviewed, as well as the methodology and criticisms of this research. Furthermore, the differences between economic and psychological theories are considered. In the end, the practical implications of this research for the managerial domain are mentioned

A global look at time: a 24-country study of the equivalence of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory

In this article, we assess the structural equivalence of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI) across 26 samples from 24 countries (N = 12,200). The ZTPI is proven to be a valid and reliable index of individual differences in time perspective across five temporal categories: Past Negative, Past Positive, Present Fatalistic, Present Hedonistic, and Future. We obtained evidence for invariance of 36 items (out of 56) and also the five-factor structure of ZTPI across 23 countries. The short ZTPI scales are reliable for country-level analysis, whereas we recommend the use of the full scales for individual-level analysis. The short version of ZTPI will further promote integration of research in the time perspective domain in relation to many different psycho-social processes

A global look at time: a 24-country study of the Equivalence of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory

In this article, we assess the structural equivalence of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI) across 26 samples from 24 countries (N = 12,200). The ZTPI is proven to be a valid and reliable index of individual differences in time perspective across five temporal categories: Past Negative, Past Positive, Present Fatalistic, Present Hedonistic, and Future. We obtained evidence for invariance of 36 items (out of 56) and also the five-factor structure of ZTPI across 23 countries. The short ZTPI scales are reliable for country-level analysis, whereas we recommend the use of the full scales for individual-level analysis. The short version of ZTPI will further promote integration of research in the time perspective domain in relation to many different psycho-social processes

Time perspective profiles of cultures

This chapter summarises some results of the International Time Perspective Research Project, which is a collaborative cross-cultural study of time perspective carried out in 24 countries. The highlights of structural equivalence assessment study are presented, showing the cross-cultural invariance of 36 items of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI) scale. The associations between country-level ZTPI scores and other culture-level indicators, including the Human Development Index and Hofstede cultural dimensions, are presented and discussed. Using hierarchical cluster analysis, five distinct profiles of time perspective were found (future-oriented, present-oriented, balanced, moderately fatalistic, and negative), and significant differences in the prevalence of these profiles across cultures were found. Implications and perspectives for future research are discussed

A Global Look at Time

International audienc

A Global Look at Time

International audienc