The Impact of Outcome Elaboration on Susceptibility to Contextual and Presentation Biases

The authors examine an important anomaly in investment behavior—namely, the tendency to fall prey to the effects of contextual and presentation biases, which emerge when people make different decisions as a function of how information is presented to them. They also identify an important factor that moderates these effects. The results from four studies show that investors with a stronger tendency to engage in predecision outcome elaboration are less susceptible to various contextual and presentation biases and are more likely to make consistent investment choices. Furthermore, the authors find that encouraging predecision elaboration on both the potential benefits and the potential risks of investing helps investors who tend not to engage in such elaboration become less influenced by peripheral cues, such as information framing and presentation mode. The findings offer implications for decision research and for the design, presentation, and communication of financial products.

[1]  Gergana Y. Nenkov,et al.  Considering the Future: The Conceptualization and Measurement of Elaboration on Potential Outcomes , 2008 .

[2]  Dilip Soman,et al.  Framing, Loss Aversion, and Mental Accounting , 2008 .

[3]  Susan Jung Grant,et al.  Hedging Your Bets and Assessing the Outcome , 2007 .

[4]  R. Shiller Tools for Financial Innovation: Neoclassical Versus Behavioral Finance , 2006 .

[5]  Rebecca W. Hamilton,et al.  Achieving Your Goals or Protecting Their Future? The Effects of Self-View on Goals and Choices , 2005 .

[6]  G. Tellis,et al.  Losers, Winners and Biased Trades , 2005 .

[7]  S. Rubichi,et al.  Numerical Information Format and Investment Decisions: Implications for the Disposition Effect and the Status Quo Bias , 2005 .

[8]  John W. Payne,et al.  Does Elaboration Increase or Decrease the Effectiveness of Negatively versus Positively Framed Messages , 2004 .

[9]  Andrew F. Simon,et al.  Decision framing: moderating effects of individual differences and cognitive processing , 2004 .

[10]  Nigel Harvey,et al.  Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making , 2004 .

[11]  Arthur B. Kennickell,et al.  Recent changes in U.S. family finances: evidence from the 2001 and 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances , 2006 .

[12]  Rongrong Zhou,et al.  Promotion and Prevention Across Mental Accounts: When Financial Products Dictate Consumers' Investment Goals , 2004 .

[13]  I. Levin,et al.  A New Look at Framing Effects: Distribution of Effect Sizes, Individual Differences, and Independence of Types of Effects , 2002 .

[14]  Amar Cheema,et al.  The Effect of Credit on Spending Decisions: The Role of the Credit Limit and Credibility , 2002 .

[15]  Stacy L. Wood,et al.  Psychological Indicators of Innovation Adoption: Cross-Classification Based on Need for Cognition and Need for Change , 2002 .

[16]  R. Thaler,et al.  Naive Diversification Strategies in Defined Contribution Saving Plans , 2001 .

[17]  Morton D. Davis The Psychology of Investing , 2001 .

[18]  A. Tversky,et al.  Choices, Values, and Frames , 2000 .

[19]  Susan G. Watts,et al.  Chasing Hot Funds: The Effects of Relative Performance on Portfolio Choice , 2000 .

[20]  Sandra J. Milberg,et al.  The differential processing of price in gains and losses: the effects of frame and need for cognition , 2000 .

[21]  R. Thaler,et al.  Risk Aversion Or Myopia? Choices in Repeated Gambles and Retirement Investments , 1999 .

[22]  Peter M. Gollwitzer,et al.  Deliberative versus implemental mindsets in the control of action , 1999 .

[23]  Schneider,et al.  All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects. , 1998, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[24]  Peter Tufano,et al.  Costly Search and Mutual Fund Flows , 1998 .

[25]  Sankar Sen Knowledge, Information Mode, and the Attraction Effect , 1998 .

[26]  Alexander J. Rothman,et al.  Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: the role of message framing. , 1997, Psychological bulletin.

[27]  Irwin P. Levin,et al.  Need for Cognition and Choice Framing Effects , 1996 .

[28]  David I. Gilliland,et al.  The infomercial shopper , 1996 .

[29]  Roland Racko Hedging your bets , 1995 .

[30]  Priscilla O'Clock,et al.  An Investigation of Framing and Firm Size on the Auditor's Going Concern Decision , 1995 .

[31]  Lauren G. Block,et al.  When to Accentuate the Negative: The Effects of Perceived Efficacy and Message Framing on Intentions to Perform a Health-Related Behavior , 1995 .

[32]  Lauren G. Block,et al.  When to Accentuate the Negative: The Effects of Perceived Efficacy and Message Framing on Intentions to Perform a Health-Related Behavior , 1995 .

[33]  Walt J. Woerheide An index of portfolio diversification , 1993 .

[34]  P. Homer,et al.  Message Framing and the Interrelationships among Ad-Based Feelings, Affect, and Cognition , 1992 .

[35]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Behavioral decision research: A constructive processing perspective. , 1992 .

[36]  Brian D. Singer,et al.  Determinants of Portfolio Performance II: An Update , 1991 .

[37]  Joan Meyers-Levy,et al.  The Influence of Message Framing and Issue Involvement , 1990 .

[38]  I. Erev,et al.  Verbal versus numerical probabilities: Efficiency, biases, and the preference paradox☆ , 1990 .

[39]  P. Gollwitzer Action phases and mind-sets , 1990 .

[40]  D. Halpern,et al.  Using statistical risk information to assess oral contraceptive safety , 1989 .

[41]  Peter M. Gollwitzer,et al.  Effects of deliberative and implemental mind-sets on illusion of control. , 1989 .

[42]  Irwin P. Levin,et al.  Information framing effects in social and personal decisions , 1988 .

[43]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Information displays and preference reversals , 1988 .

[44]  A. Tversky,et al.  Rational choice and the framing of decisions , 1990 .

[45]  Gary P. Brinson,et al.  Determinants of Portfolio Performance , 1986 .

[46]  Roderick M. Kramer,et al.  Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing. , 1986 .

[47]  Preferences Scientific Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. , 1982 .

[48]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  The need for cognition. , 1982 .

[49]  Christopher P. Puto,et al.  Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity & the Similarity Hypothesis. , 1981 .

[50]  R. Thaler Toward a positive theory of consumer choice , 1980 .

[51]  Ramsay Rw Personality and speech. , 1966 .