Most American respondents give “irrational,” magical responses in a variety of situations that exemplify the sympathetic magical laws of similarity and contagion. In most of these cases, respondents are aware that their responses (usually rejections, as of fudge crafted to look like dog feces, or a food touched by a sterilized, dead cockroach) are not “scientifically” justified, but they are willing to avow them. We interpret this, in some sense, as “heart over head.” We report in this study that American adults and undergraduates are substantially less likely to acknowledge magical effects when the judgments involve money (amount willing to pay to avoid an “unpleasant” magical contact) than they are when using preference or rating measures. We conclude that in “head-heart” conflicts of this type, money tips the balance towards the former, or, in other words, that money makes the mind less magical.

While previous research has found that children make more risky decisions than their parents, little is known about the developmental trajectory for the ability to make advantageous decisions. In a sample of children, 5-11 years old, we administered a new risky decision making task in which the relative expected value (EV) of the risky and riskless choice options was varied over trials. Younger children (age 5-7) showed significantly less responsiveness to EV differences than their parents on both trials involving risky gains and trials involving risky losses. For older children (age 8-11) this deficit was smaller overall but was greater on loss trials than on gain trials. Children of both ages made more risky choices than adults when risky choices were disadvantageous. We further analyzed these results in terms of children's ability to utilize probability and outcome information, and discussed them in terms of developing brain structures vital for decision making under uncertainty.

We study whether probability weighting is observed when individuals are presented with a series of choices between lotteries consisting of real non-monetary adverse outcomes, electric shocks. Our estimation of the parameters of the probability weighting function proposed by Tversky and Kahneman (1992) are similar to those obtained in previous studies of lottery choice for negative monetary payoffs and negative hypothetical payoffs. In addition, common ratio violations in choice behavior are widespread. Our results provide evidence that probability weighting is a general phenomenon, independent of the source of disutility.

The Ratio-Bias phenomenon, observed by psychologist Seymour Epstein and colleagues, is a systematic manifestation of irrationality. When offered a choice between two lotteries, individuals consistently choose the lottery with the greater number of potential successes, even when it offers a smaller probability of success. In the current study, we conduct experiments to confirm this phenomenon and test for the existence of Bias as distinct from general irrationality. Moreover, we examine the effect of introducing a monetary incentive of varying size (depending on the treatment) on the extent of irrational choices within this framework. We confirm the existence of the Bias. Moreover, the existence of an incentive significantly reduces the extent of irrationality exhibited, and that this effect is roughly linear in response to changes in the size of the incentive within the magnitudes investigated.

We examined how the goal of a decision task influences the perceived positive, negative valence of the alternatives and thereby the likelihood and direction of framing effects. In Study 1 we manipulated the goal to increase, decrease or maintain the commodity in question and found that when the goal of the task was to increase the commodity, a framing effect consistent with those typically observed in the literature was found. When the goal was to decrease, a framing effect opposite to the typical findings was observed whereas when the goal was to maintain, no framing effect was found. When we examined the decisions of the entire population, we did not observe a framing effect. In Study 2, we provided participants with a similar decision task except in this situation the goal was ambiguous, allowing us to observe participants' self-imposed goals and how they influenced choice preferences. The findings from Study 2 demonstrated individual variability in imposed goal and provided a conceptual replication of Study 1.