Valuations of target items are drawn towards unavailable decoy items due to prior expectations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When people make choices, the items they consider are often embedded in a context (of other items). How this context affects the valuation of the specific item is an important question. High-value context might make items appear less attractive because of contrast-the tendency to normalize perception of an object relative to its background-or more attractive because of assimilation-the tendency to group objects together. Alternatively, a high-value context might increase prior expectations about the item's value. Here, we investigated these possibilities. We examined how unavailable context items affect choices between two target items, as well as the willingness-to-pay for single targets. Participants viewed sets of three items for several seconds before the target(s) were highlighted. In both tasks, we found a significant assimilation-like effect where participants were more likely to choose or place a higher value on a target when it was surrounded by higher-value context. However, these context effects were only significant for participants' fastest choices. Using variants of a drift-diffusion model, we established that the unavailable context shifted participants' prior expectations towards the average values of the sets but had an inconclusive effect on their evaluations of the targets during the decision (i.e. drift rates). In summary, we find that people use context to inform their initial valuations. This can improve efficiency by allowing people to get a head start on their decision. However, it also means that the valuation of an item can change depending on the context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".