Biases in Improvement Decisions: People Focus on the Relative Reduction in Bad Outcomes.

People often decide whether to invest scarce resources-such as time, money, or energy-to improve their chances of a positive outcome. For example, a doctor might decide whether to utilize scarce medicine to improve a patient's chances of recovery, or a student might decide whether to study a few additional hours to increase their chances of passing an exam. We conducted 11 studies (N = 5,342 adults) and found evidence that people behave as if they focus on the relative reduction in bad outcomes caused by such improvements. As a consequence, the same improvements (e.g., 10-percentage-point improvements) are valued very differently depending on whether one's initial chances of success are high or low. This focus on the relative reduction of bad outcomes drives risk preferences that violate normative standards (Studies 1a-1g and 2a), is amplified when decisions become more consequential (Study 2b), and leads even experienced professionals to make suboptimal decisions (Study 3).

Needing everything (or just one thing) to go right: Myopic preferences for consolidating or spreading risks.

Succeeding at a task often depends on the success or failure of component events. Such multicomponent risks can take one of two general forms. Disjunctive risks require the success of just one such component; conjunctive risks, all of them. Seven studies converge to show people prefer to consolidate disjunctive risks into fewer components and to spread conjunctive risks across more components, independent of the objective or subjective implications for the probability of overall success. These tendencies were reflected in preferences for how to approach potential investors, decisions about how much to invest in different business opportunities, and gamble valuations. Such preferences were specific to multicomponent risks as compared to single-component risks whose overall prospects for success were yoked to participants' own perceptions of a matched multicomponent risk. Participants confronted multicomponent risks myopically, swayed by whether positive or disappointing news would likely be delivered at a single point in time instead of by the overall prospects for success. Supporting this account, these preferences for consolidating or spreading risks were reduced when the components' outcomes would be revealed at once. Anticipated confidence while proceeding through the risk (even controlling for perceived probabilities of success) explained these preferences. After all, these preferred risk structures actually do allow people to traverse a multicomponent risk with more confidence that the next piece of news they receive will be positive (or not negative), though such myopic perspectives neglect just how many components will offer a chance for success (disjunctive risks) or the potential for failure (conjunctive risks). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Empirical audit and review and an assessment of evidentiary value in research on the psychological consequences of scarcity.

Empirical audit and review is an approach to assessing the evidentiary value of a research area. It involves identifying a topic and selecting a cross-section of studies for replication. We apply the method to research on the psychological consequences of scarcity. Starting with the papers citing a seminal publication in the field, we conducted replications of 20 studies that evaluate the role of scarcity priming in pain sensitivity, resource allocation, materialism, and many other domains. There was considerable variability in the replicability, with some strong successes and other undeniable failures. Empirical audit and review does not attempt to assign an overall replication rate for a heterogeneous field, but rather facilitates researchers seeking to incorporate strength of evidence as they refine theories and plan new investigations in the research area. This method allows for an integration of qualitative and quantitative approaches to review and enables the growth of a cumulative science.

The costs of not disclosing.

Although choosing to disclose self-relevant information can expose personal vulnerabilities, choosing not to disclose information poses risks of its own. In this article, we detail both intrapersonal and interpersonal costs of not disclosing. Ironically, some of these costs reflect the very ones concealers were hoping to avoid by not revealing their secrets. We then consider why secret keeping is so common if it is indeed so costly. Both misestimations of the costs and a blindness to less-daunting means of disclosure may lead concealment to persist. It is important for future research not merely to help correct errors in concealers' prospective cost-benefit analyses of revealing, but also to identify the means of disclosure that maximize benefits and minimize costs.