Joshua Lewis

• Joshua Lewis and Joseph Simmons (2020), Prospective Outcome Bias: Incurring (Unnecessary) Costs to Achieve Outcomes That Are Already Likely, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149 (), pp. 870-888. Abstract

  How do people decide whether to incur costs to increase their likelihood of success? In investigating this question, we offer a theory called prospective outcome bias. According to this theory, people tend to make decisions that they expect to feel good about after the outcome has been realized. Because people expect to feel best about decisions that are followed by successes—even when the decisions did not cause those successes—they will pay more to increase their chances of success when success is already likely (e.g., people will pay more to increase their probability of success from 80% to 90% than from 10% to 20%). We find evidence for prospective outcome bias in nine experiments. In Study 1, we establish that people evaluate costly decisions that precede successes more favorably than costly decisions that precede failures, even when the decisions did not cause the outcome. Study 2 establishes, in an incentive-compatible laboratory setting, that people are more motivated to increase higher chances of success. Studies 3–5 generalize the effect to other contexts and decisions and Studies 6–8 indicate that prospective outcome bias causes it (rather than regret aversion, waste aversion, goals-as-reference-points, probability weighting, or loss aversion). Finally, in Study 9, we find evidence for another prediction of prospective outcome bias: people prefer small increases in the probability of large rewards (e.g., a 1% improvement in their chances of winning $100) to large increases in the probability of small rewards (e.g., a 10% improvement in their chances of winning $10).

• Joshua Lewis and Deborah Small (Working), Ineffective Altruism: Giving Less When Donations Do More Good. Abstract

  Despite well-meaning intentions, people rarely allocate their charitable donations in the most cost-effective way possible. The manner in which cost-effectiveness information is presented can be a contributing factor. In four studies (N = 2,725), when we inform participants of the cost of a unit of impact (e.g. the cost of a mosquito net), they perversely donate less when the cost is cheaper. This result arises because people want their donation to have a tangible impact, and when the cost of such an impact is lower, people can achieve it with a smaller donation. A remedy for this inefficiency is to express cost-effectiveness in terms of “units per dollar amount” (e.g. 5 nets provided per $10 donated) and leave the cost of providing one tangible item unstated, rendering it less salient as a target donation amount.  Across Studies 2 and 3, we demonstrate both the inefficiency and the effectiveness of the remedy for incentive-compatible donations decisions about providing meals, oral rehydration therapy, deworming medication, and measles vaccines.

  Related
  Links

  link to working paper
• Joshua Lewis, Celia Gaertig, Joseph Simmons (2019), Extremeness Aversion Is a Cause of Anchoring, Psychological Science, 30 (), pp. 159-173. Abstract

  When estimating unknown quantities, people insufficiently adjust from values they have previously considered, a phenomenon known as anchoring. We suggest that anchoring is at least partially caused by a desire to avoid making extreme adjustments. In seven studies (N = 5,279), we found that transparently irrelevant cues of extremeness influenced people’s adjustments from anchors. In Studies 1-6, participants were less likely to adjust beyond a particular amount when that amount was closer to the maximum allowable adjustment. For example, in Study 5, participants were less likely to adjust by at least 6 units when they were allowed to adjust by a maximum of 6 units than by a maximum of 15 units. In Study 7, participants adjusted less after considering whether an outcome would be within a smaller distance of the anchor. These results suggest that anchoring effects may reflect a desire to avoid adjustments that feel too extreme.

Knowledge @ Wharton

• How Dynamic Electricity Pricing Can Improve Market Efficiency, Knowledge @ Wharton - 11/12/2024
• Is Algorithmic Management Too Controlling?, Knowledge @ Wharton - 11/12/2024
• The Hidden Cost of AI Energy Consumption, Knowledge @ Wharton - 11/12/2024
• Charitable and Political Giving | Pinar Yildirim, Knowledge @ Wharton - 11/12/2024
• The Future of Banking, Knowledge @ Wharton - 11/11/2024
• Election Statistics, Knowledge @ Wharton - 11/06/2024
• Robots Are Taking Over Low-skilled Jobs — and Changing Votes, Knowledge @ Wharton - 11/05/2024
• Crypto Politics: Liberals’ and Conservatives’ Confidence in Cryptocurrencies, Knowledge @ Wharton - 11/05/2024
• Leadership and Elections | Mike Useem, Knowledge @ Wharton - 11/05/2024
• Automation Is Harming Low-skilled Workers and Possibly Their Voting Preferences, Knowledge @ Wharton - 11/01/2024