How common is the ‘prominence effect’? Additional evidence to Whyneset al.

2006 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith Covey ◽  
Richard D. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Prominence Effect

scholarly journals Studying the prominence effect amid the COVID-19 crisis: implications for public health policy decision-making.

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 1356
Author(s):  
Yossi Maaravi ◽  
Ben Heller
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Matching Condition ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
The Other ◽  
Choice Condition ◽  
Health Concerns ◽  
Prominence Effect ◽  
Novel Coronavirus ◽  
The Cost

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has brought with it crucial policy- and decision-making situations, especially when making judgments between financial and health concerns. One particularly relevant decision-making phenomenon is the prominence effect, where decision-makers base their decisions on the most prominent attribute of the object at hand (e.g., health concerns) rather than weigh all the attributes together. This bias diminishes when the decision-making mode inhibits heuristic processes. In this study, we tested the prominence of health vs. financial concerns across two decision-making modes - choice (prone to heuristics) and matching (mitigates heuristics) - during the peak of the COVID-19 in the UK using Tversky et al.’s classic experimental paradigm. We added to the classic experimental design a priming condition. Participants were presented with two casualty-minimization programs, differing in lives saved and costs: program X would save 100 lives at the cost of 55-million-pound sterling, whereas program Y would save 30 lives at the cost of 12-million-pound sterling. Half of the participants were required to choose between the programs (choice condition). The other half were not given the cost of program X and were asked to determine what the cost should be to make it as equally attractive as the program Y. Participants in both groups were primed for either: a) financial concerns; b) health concerns; or c) control (no priming). Results showed that in the choice condition, unless primed for financial concerns, health concerns are more prominent. In the matching condition, on the other hand, the prominence of health concerns did not affect decision-makers, as they all “preferred” the cheaper option. These results add further support to the practical relevance of using the proper decision-making modes in times of consequential crises where multiple concerns, interests, and parties are involved.

scholarly journals Studying the prominence effect amid the COVID-19 crisis: implications for public health policy decision-making.

F1000Research ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 1356
Author(s):  
Yossi Maaravi ◽  
Ben Heller
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Matching Condition ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
The Other ◽  
Choice Condition ◽  
Health Concerns ◽  
Prominence Effect ◽  
Novel Coronavirus ◽  
The Cost

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has brought with it crucial policy- and decision-making situations, especially when making judgments between economic and health concerns. One particularly relevant decision-making phenomenon is the prominence effect, where decision-makers base their decisions on the most prominent attribute of the object at hand (e.g., health concerns) rather than weigh all the attributes together. This bias diminishes when the decision-making mode inhibits heuristic processes. In this study, we tested the prominence of health vs. economic concerns across two decision-making modes - choice (prone to heuristics) and matching (mitigates heuristics) - during the peak of the COVID-19 in the UK using Tversky et al.’s classic experimental paradigm. We added to the classic experimental design a priming condition. Participants were presented with two casualty-minimization programs, differing in lives saved and costs: program X would save 100 lives at the cost of 55-million-pound sterling, whereas program Y would save 30 lives at the cost of 12-million-pound sterling. Half of the participants were required to choose between the programs (choice condition). The other half were not given the cost of program X and were asked to determine what the cost should be to make it as equally attractive as the program Y. Participants in both groups were primed for either: a) economic concerns; b) health concerns; or c) control (no priming). Results showed that in the choice condition, unless primed for economic concerns, health concerns are more prominent. In the matching condition, on the other hand, the prominence of health concerns did not affect decision-makers, as they all “preferred” the cheaper option. These results add further support to the practical relevance of using the proper decision-making modes in times of consequential crises where multiple concerns, interests, and parties are involved.

Goal-Based Construction of Preferences: Task Goals and the Prominence Effect

1999 ◽  
Vol 45 (8) ◽  
pp. 1057-1075 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory W. Fischer ◽  
Ziv Carmon ◽  
Dan Ariely ◽  
Gal Zauberman
Keyword(s):  
Prominence Effect ◽  
Task Goals
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document