The Adelson School of Entrepreneurship, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Herzliya, Israel, 4610101, Israel.
Baruch Ivcher School of Psychology, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Herzliya, Israel, 4610101, Israel.
F1000Res. 2020 Nov 20;9:1356. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.27324.2. eCollection 2020.
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 '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.
2019 年新型冠状病毒病（COVID-19）带来了至关重要的政策和决策情况，尤其是在权衡财务和健康问题时。一个特别相关的决策现象是突出效应，决策者根据手头对象最突出的属性（例如健康问题）做出决策，而不是综合考虑所有属性。当决策模式抑制启发式过程时，这种偏差会减小。在这项研究中，我们使用 Tversky 的经典实验范式，在英国 COVID-19 高峰期的两个决策模式——选择（倾向于启发式）和匹配（减轻启发式）——下测试了健康与财务关注的突出程度。我们在经典实验设计中增加了一个启动条件。参与者被呈现两种伤亡最小化方案，方案 X 以 5500 万英镑的成本挽救 100 条生命，方案 Y 以 1200 万英镑的成本挽救 30 条生命。一半的参与者需要在方案之间进行选择（选择条件）。另一半参与者没有给出方案 X 的成本，并被要求确定成本应为多少，以使方案 X 与方案 Y 同样有吸引力。两组参与者都被启动了以下条件之一：a）财务关注；b）健康关注；或 c）控制（无启动）。结果表明，在选择条件下，除非启动财务关注，否则健康关注更为突出。另一方面，在匹配条件下，健康关注的突出程度不会影响决策者，因为他们都“更喜欢”更便宜的方案。这些结果进一步支持了在涉及多个关注、利益和各方的重大危机中使用适当决策模式的实际意义。
