Pseudo-Set Framing

Kate  Barasz; Leslie  John; Elizabeth A. Keenan; Michael I. Norton

Article | Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Pseudo-Set Framing

by Kate Barasz, Leslie John, Elizabeth A. Keenan and Michael I. Norton

Abstract

Pseudo-set framing—arbitrarily grouping items or tasks together as part of an apparent “set”—motivates people to reach perceived completion points. Pseudo-set framing changes gambling choices (Study 1), effort (Studies 2 and 3), giving behavior (Field Data and Study 4), and purchase decisions (Study 5). These effects persist in the absence of any reward, when a cost must be incurred, and after participants are explicitly informed of the arbitrariness of the set. Drawing on Gestalt psychology, we develop a conceptual account that predicts what will—and will not—act as a pseudo-set and defines the psychological process through which these pseudo-sets affect behavior, concluding that over and above typical reference points, pseudo-set framing alters perceptions of (in)completeness, making intermediate progress seem less complete. In turn, these feelings of incompleteness motivate people to persist until the pseudo-set has been fulfilled.

Keywords: framing effects; Gestalt psychology; judgment; decision making; perception; Judgments; Decision Making; Perception; Behavior;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard Read Now

Citation:

Barasz, Kate, Leslie John, Elizabeth A. Keenan, and Michael I. Norton. "Pseudo-Set Framing." Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 146, no. 10 (October 2017): 1460–1477.

Email mking@hbs.edu for a courtesy copy.

The case describes a program that CVS Health recently implemented to improve medication adherence, an important problem from a societal, public policy, and firm perspective. A test of the program, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to implement, increased the proportion of adherent customers by 1.4 percentage points. Students are asked to quantify the system-wide economic benefit of this improvement and draw upon insights from behavioral science to examine approaches for boosting medication adherence.

Email mking@hbs.edu for a courtesy copy.

By the time Dan Doctoroff, CEO of Sidewalk Labs, began hosting a Reddit “Ask Me Anything” session in January 2018, he had only nine months remaining to convince the people of Toronto, their government representatives, and presumably his parent company Alphabet, Inc., that Sidewalk Labs’ plan to construct “the first truly 21st-century city” on the Canadian city’s waterfront was a sound one. Along with much excitement and optimism, strains of concern had emerged since Doctoroff and partners first announced their intentions for a city “built from the internet up” in Toronto’s Quayside district. As Doctoroff prepared for yet another milestone in a year of planning and community engagement, it was almost certain that of the many questions headed his way, digital privacy would be among them.

Article | Cognition | July 2019

I Know Why You Voted for Trump: (Over)inferring Motives Based on Choice

Kate Barasz, Tami Kim and Ioannis Evangelidis

People often speculate about why others make the choices they do. This paper investigates how such inferences are formed as a function of what is chosen. Specifically, when observers encounter someone else's choice (e.g., of political candidate), they use the chosen option's attribute values (e.g., a candidate's specific stance on a policy issue) to infer the importance of that attribute (e.g., the policy issue) to the decision-maker. Consequently, when a chosen option has an attribute whose value is extreme (e.g., an extreme policy stance), observers infer—sometimes incorrectly—that this attribute disproportionately motivated the decision-maker's choice. Seven studies demonstrate how observers use an attribute's value to infer its weight—the value-weight heuristic—and identify the role of perceived diagnosticity: more extreme attribute values give observers the subjective sense that they know more about a decision-maker's preferences and, in turn, increase the attribute's perceived importance. The paper explores how this heuristic can produce erroneous inferences and influence broader beliefs about decision-makers.

Keywords: self-other difference; social perception; inference-making; preferences; consumer behavior; prediction; prediction error; Decision Choices and Conditions; Perception; Behavior; Forecasting and Prediction;

Citation:

Barasz, Kate, Tami Kim, and Ioannis Evangelidis. "I Know Why You Voted for Trump: (Over)inferring Motives Based on Choice." Special Issue on The Cognitive Science of Political Thought. Cognition 188 (July 2019): 85–97. View Details

Cite View Details Find at Harvard

Faculty & Research

Pseudo-Set Framing

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors