Loading…
The effect of effects on effectiveness: A boon-bane asymmetry
Beliefs about how effective a cause will be at achieving possible outcomes are critical inputs into a range of decisions, from how to treat an illness to which products to purchase. We identify scope—the number of distinct outcomes a cause is known to achieve—as an important input into judgments of...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Cognition 2020-06, Vol.199, p.104240-104240, Article 104240 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c399t-3515ba00b8f87cf0c1f2cc3e5d0f4ab8b3e5c411c5e1172c26f804e753b175363 |
|---|---|
| cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c399t-3515ba00b8f87cf0c1f2cc3e5d0f4ab8b3e5c411c5e1172c26f804e753b175363 |
| container_end_page | 104240 |
| container_issue | |
| container_start_page | 104240 |
| container_title | Cognition |
| container_volume | 199 |
| creator | Sussman, Abigail B. Oppenheimer, Daniel M. |
| description | Beliefs about how effective a cause will be at achieving possible outcomes are critical inputs into a range of decisions, from how to treat an illness to which products to purchase. We identify scope—the number of distinct outcomes a cause is known to achieve—as an important input into judgments of efficacy. We compare causes that lead to worse outcomes (i.e., banes) to those leading to improvements (i.e., boons). People believe that banes with broader scope (i.e., those that lead to more possible outcomes) are more effective and lead to stronger outcomes. In contrast, people believe that boons with narrower scope (i.e., those that lead to fewer possible outcomes) are more effective and lead to stronger outcomes. We document this pattern across four experiments, finding support for differences in mental models for boons and banes. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104240 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2376730276</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0010027720300597</els_id><sourcerecordid>2376730276</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c399t-3515ba00b8f87cf0c1f2cc3e5d0f4ab8b3e5c411c5e1172c26f804e753b175363</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkMtKAzEUhoMotlZfQQfcuJl6cplJKrgoxRsU3NR1mElPNKUzqcm00Lc3pbULN26Sn_CdSz5CbigMKdDyfjE0_rN1nfPtkAHbvQom4IT0qZI8l4qrU9IHoJADk7JHLmJcACRIqnPS44yWUEjok8fZF2ZoLZou8_aQYubbQ3QbbDHGh2yc1d63eV21mFVx2zTYhe0lObPVMuLV4R6Qj-en2eQ1n76_vE3G09zw0ajLeUGLugKolVXSWDDUMmM4FnOwoqpVnaIRlJoCKZXMsNIqECgLXtN0lHxA7vZ9V8F_rzF2unHR4HKZtvHrqBmXpeTppzv09g-68OvQpu00E0KUinMuEiX3lAk-xoBWr4JrqrDVFPTOsF7oo2G9M6z3hlPl9aH_um5wfqz7VZqA8R7AJGTjMOhoHLYG5y4koXru3b9DfgBpvY6T</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2444683334</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The effect of effects on effectiveness: A boon-bane asymmetry</title><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>Elsevier</source><creator>Sussman, Abigail B. ; Oppenheimer, Daniel M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Sussman, Abigail B. ; Oppenheimer, Daniel M.</creatorcontrib><description>Beliefs about how effective a cause will be at achieving possible outcomes are critical inputs into a range of decisions, from how to treat an illness to which products to purchase. We identify scope—the number of distinct outcomes a cause is known to achieve—as an important input into judgments of efficacy. We compare causes that lead to worse outcomes (i.e., banes) to those leading to improvements (i.e., boons). People believe that banes with broader scope (i.e., those that lead to more possible outcomes) are more effective and lead to stronger outcomes. In contrast, people believe that boons with narrower scope (i.e., those that lead to fewer possible outcomes) are more effective and lead to stronger outcomes. We document this pattern across four experiments, finding support for differences in mental models for boons and banes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0010-0277</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-7838</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104240</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32160570</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Causal reasoning ; Decision making ; Efficacy ; Judgment ; Mental models ; Scope</subject><ispartof>Cognition, 2020-06, Vol.199, p.104240-104240, Article 104240</ispartof><rights>2020 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Jun 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c399t-3515ba00b8f87cf0c1f2cc3e5d0f4ab8b3e5c411c5e1172c26f804e753b175363</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c399t-3515ba00b8f87cf0c1f2cc3e5d0f4ab8b3e5c411c5e1172c26f804e753b175363</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,33223</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32160570$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sussman, Abigail B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oppenheimer, Daniel M.</creatorcontrib><title>The effect of effects on effectiveness: A boon-bane asymmetry</title><title>Cognition</title><addtitle>Cognition</addtitle><description>Beliefs about how effective a cause will be at achieving possible outcomes are critical inputs into a range of decisions, from how to treat an illness to which products to purchase. We identify scope—the number of distinct outcomes a cause is known to achieve—as an important input into judgments of efficacy. We compare causes that lead to worse outcomes (i.e., banes) to those leading to improvements (i.e., boons). People believe that banes with broader scope (i.e., those that lead to more possible outcomes) are more effective and lead to stronger outcomes. In contrast, people believe that boons with narrower scope (i.e., those that lead to fewer possible outcomes) are more effective and lead to stronger outcomes. We document this pattern across four experiments, finding support for differences in mental models for boons and banes.</description><subject>Causal reasoning</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Efficacy</subject><subject>Judgment</subject><subject>Mental models</subject><subject>Scope</subject><issn>0010-0277</issn><issn>1873-7838</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkMtKAzEUhoMotlZfQQfcuJl6cplJKrgoxRsU3NR1mElPNKUzqcm00Lc3pbULN26Sn_CdSz5CbigMKdDyfjE0_rN1nfPtkAHbvQom4IT0qZI8l4qrU9IHoJADk7JHLmJcACRIqnPS44yWUEjok8fZF2ZoLZou8_aQYubbQ3QbbDHGh2yc1d63eV21mFVx2zTYhe0lObPVMuLV4R6Qj-en2eQ1n76_vE3G09zw0ajLeUGLugKolVXSWDDUMmM4FnOwoqpVnaIRlJoCKZXMsNIqECgLXtN0lHxA7vZ9V8F_rzF2unHR4HKZtvHrqBmXpeTppzv09g-68OvQpu00E0KUinMuEiX3lAk-xoBWr4JrqrDVFPTOsF7oo2G9M6z3hlPl9aH_um5wfqz7VZqA8R7AJGTjMOhoHLYG5y4koXru3b9DfgBpvY6T</recordid><startdate>202006</startdate><enddate>202006</enddate><creator>Sussman, Abigail B.</creator><creator>Oppenheimer, Daniel M.</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier Science Ltd</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202006</creationdate><title>The effect of effects on effectiveness: A boon-bane asymmetry</title><author>Sussman, Abigail B. ; Oppenheimer, Daniel M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c399t-3515ba00b8f87cf0c1f2cc3e5d0f4ab8b3e5c411c5e1172c26f804e753b175363</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Causal reasoning</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Efficacy</topic><topic>Judgment</topic><topic>Mental models</topic><topic>Scope</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sussman, Abigail B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oppenheimer, Daniel M.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Cognition</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sussman, Abigail B.</au><au>Oppenheimer, Daniel M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The effect of effects on effectiveness: A boon-bane asymmetry</atitle><jtitle>Cognition</jtitle><addtitle>Cognition</addtitle><date>2020-06</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>199</volume><spage>104240</spage><epage>104240</epage><pages>104240-104240</pages><artnum>104240</artnum><issn>0010-0277</issn><eissn>1873-7838</eissn><abstract>Beliefs about how effective a cause will be at achieving possible outcomes are critical inputs into a range of decisions, from how to treat an illness to which products to purchase. We identify scope—the number of distinct outcomes a cause is known to achieve—as an important input into judgments of efficacy. We compare causes that lead to worse outcomes (i.e., banes) to those leading to improvements (i.e., boons). People believe that banes with broader scope (i.e., those that lead to more possible outcomes) are more effective and lead to stronger outcomes. In contrast, people believe that boons with narrower scope (i.e., those that lead to fewer possible outcomes) are more effective and lead to stronger outcomes. We document this pattern across four experiments, finding support for differences in mental models for boons and banes.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>32160570</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104240</doi><tpages>1</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0010-0277 |
| ispartof | Cognition, 2020-06, Vol.199, p.104240-104240, Article 104240 |
| issn | 0010-0277 1873-7838 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2376730276 |
| source | International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); Elsevier |
| subjects | Causal reasoning Decision making Efficacy Judgment Mental models Scope |
| title | The effect of effects on effectiveness: A boon-bane asymmetry |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T14%3A55%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20effect%20of%20effects%20on%20effectiveness:%20A%20boon-bane%20asymmetry&rft.jtitle=Cognition&rft.au=Sussman,%20Abigail%20B.&rft.date=2020-06&rft.volume=199&rft.spage=104240&rft.epage=104240&rft.pages=104240-104240&rft.artnum=104240&rft.issn=0010-0277&rft.eissn=1873-7838&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104240&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2376730276%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c399t-3515ba00b8f87cf0c1f2cc3e5d0f4ab8b3e5c411c5e1172c26f804e753b175363%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2444683334&rft_id=info:pmid/32160570&rfr_iscdi=true |