How Field Experiments in Economics Can Complement Psychological Research on Judgment Biases

This review summarizes results of field experiments examining individual behaviors across several market settings—from open-air markets to rideshare markets to tax-compliance markets—where people sort themselves into market roles wherein they make consequential decisions. Using three distinct examples from my own research on the endowment effect, left-digit bias, and omission bias, I showcase how field experiments can help researchers understand mediators, heterogeneity, and causal moderation involved in judgment biases in the field. In this manner, the review highlights that economic field experiments can serve an invaluable intellectual role alongside traditional laboratory research.

Opposition to Novel Biotechnologies: Testing An Omission Bias Account

The COVID-19 pandemic has taken a significant toll on the global population, but biotechnology has a big role to play in arresting the spread of the virus. However, the adoption of biotechnologies may be held back by cognitive biases. In particular, omission bias – the observation that people are more sensitive to the negative outcomes of acting than to those of failing to act – has been suggested to influence vaccination decision making. Omission bias might also underpin attitudes towards newer biotechnologies. In this study, we explored the role of omission bias in vaccination, gene editing, and nanotechnology decision-making using a US sample (N = 613). We examined participant’s risk choices across these three biotechnologies, focussing on the point at which they would use the respective biotechnology to treat a fictional illness (COVID-23). Although our findings are nuanced, overall we observed evidence consistent with an omission bias across all three biotechnologies.

Action and Inaction in Moral Judgments and Decisions: Meta-Analysis of Omission Bias Omission-Commission Asymmetries

Omission bias is people’s tendency to evaluate harm done through omission as less morally wrong and less blameworthy than commission when there is harm. However, findings are inconsistent. We conducted a preregistered meta-analysis, with 21 samples (13 articles, 49 effects) on omission-commission asymmetries in judgments and decisions. We found an overall effect of g = 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [0.14, 0.77], with stronger effects for morality and blame than for decisions. Publication bias tests produced mixed results with some indication for publication bias, though effects persisted even after most publication bias adjustments. The small sample of studies included limited our ability to draw definite conclusions regarding moderators, with inconclusive findings when applying different models. After compensating for low power, we found indication for moderation by role responsibility, perspective (self vs. others), outcome type, and study design. We hope this meta-analysis will inspire research on this phenomenon and applications to real-life, especially given the raging pandemic. Materials, data, and code are available on https://osf.io/9fcqm/ .

Missing Data in OLAP Cubes

Online analytical processing (OLAP) engines display aggregated data to help business analysts compare data, observe trends, and make decisions. Issues of data quality and, in particular, issues with missing data impact the quality of the information. Key decision-makers who rely on these data typically make decisions based on what they assume to be all the available data. The authors investigate three approaches to dealing with missing data: 1) ignore missing data, 2) show missing data explicitly (e.g., as unknown data values), and 3) design mitigation algorithms for missing data (e.g., allocate missing data into known value categories). The authors evaluate the approach with focus groups and controlled experiments. When one tries to inform decision-makers using the approaches in the research, the authors find that they often alter their decisions and adjust their decision confidence: individual differences of tolerance for ambiguity and pre-existing omission bias in the decision context influence their decisions.

Social media and mental health: Reviewing effects on eudaimonic well-being

Do social media affect users’ mental health and well-being? By now, considerable research has addressed this highly contested question. Prior studies have investigated the effects of social media use on hedonic well-being (e.g., affect and life satisfaction), psychopathology (e.g., depressive or anxiety symptoms), or psychosocial risk/resilience factors (e.g., loneliness, stress, self-esteem). Yet, public concern over social media effects often centers on more long-term negative outcomes, which may be better captured by indicators of eudaimonic well-being. Indeed, neglecting the eudaimonic side of well-being may have introduced outcome omission bias, since eudaimonia is both conceptually and empirically distinct from other dimensions of mental health and may be uniquely affected by social media use. Specifically, psychology currently theorizes eudaimonic well-being to be best represented by the experiences of (a) meaningfulness, (b) authenticity, and (c) self-actualization. A research synthesis of how social media use relates to these core indicators of eudaimonia is currently missing, however. We thus present a first narrative review that synthesizes both theoretical and empirical links between three key social media uses (i.e., active, passive, and “screen time”) and eudaimonic well-being. The synthesis shows that while there are indeed several plausible theoretical links, the evidence is too scarce and inconsistent to allow definitive conclusions at this time. We instead give recommendations for how the field can close important gaps by investigating whether social media afford or constrain opportunities to find meaning, live authentically, and grow as a person.

Small-scale utilitarianism: High acceptance of utilitarian solutions to Trolley Problems among a horticultural population in Nicaragua

Researchers often use moral dilemmas to investigate the specific factors that influence participants’ judgments of the appropriateness of different actions. A common construction of such a dilemma is the Trolley Problem, which pits an obvious utilitarian solution against a common deontological dictum to not do harm to others. Cross-cultural studies have validated the robustness of numerous contextual biases, such as judging utilitarian decisions more negatively if they require contact with other individuals (contact bias), they force others to serve as a means to an end (means bias), and if they require direct action rather than inaction (omission bias). However, such cross-cultural research is largely limited to studies of industrialized, nation-state populations. Previous research has suggested that the more intimate community relationships that characterize small-scale populations might lead to important differences, such as an absence of an omission bias. Here we contribute to this literature by investigating perceptions of Trolley Problem solutions among a Mayangna/Miskito community, a small-scale indigenous population in Nicaragua. Compared to previously sampled populations, the Mayangna/Miskito participants report higher levels of acceptance of utilitarian solutions and do not exhibit an omission bias. We also examine the justifications participants offered to explore how Mayangna/Miskito culture might influence moral judgments.

Auditor Evaluation of Manager's Competence After a Failure in Internal Control

Audit guidance requires auditors to assess management's competence with respect to internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR) based on the recommendations of COSO's integrated framework. The omission bias theory suggests that after internal control failures, auditors may assess managers' competence in a manner that is inconsistent with the requirements of the audit guidance. Results from four experiments using 313 experienced audit and accounting professionals support this concern and a means of mitigating it. I find that auditors are vulnerable to the omission bias, viewing the manager to be least responsible for the control failure and, therefore, most competent when prior to the failure the manager did nothing to prevent it. I also find that auditors can reduce their vulnerability to this bias by forewarning their clients about the increased importance of a key control in an area of potential future concern-a non-required practice encouraged by the audit guidance. Consistent with omission bias literature, I find that forewarning makes omission of action unexpected and thereby mitigates the omission bias. My results also confirm that auditors incorporate competence judgments into their evaluations of the ICFR, as required by the audit guidance.