Judgment Heuristics and Biases II (Week 2)

Summary and Discussion Questions

Dorottya Sári (2020.09.09)

Classic Paper:
“Imagining can heighten or lower the perceived likelihood of contracting a disease: The mediating
effect of ease of imagery,” 
 study based on: imagining hypothetical events or outcomes the occurrence of such events is
quite probable
 based on: cognitive heuristics; the availability heuristic
 suggestion: increased availability -> heightened likelihood of events when imagining or
explaining hypothetical future outcomes
 Study’s new aspect: comparing the judgement of likelihood based on easy-to-imagine
scenarios with difficult-to-imagine
 Research: control (reading only) and experimental (imagining) subjects
 control subjects: judge the likeliness of contracting the disease
 experimental subjects: write a description of their feelings and reactions during
the three weeks of contracting the disease + rating the difficulty to imagine
these symptoms
 Results: compared to those encountering easy-to-imagine symptoms subjects who had to
imagine or read about difficult-to-imagine symptoms rated themselves less likely to contract the
disease
 hypothesis supported: effect occurred mainly among subjects imagining the disease
 indication of the probability of contracting the disease was not differential among subjects of the
control group
 the rule of the ease of imaginability: not always feasible -> vivid and striking events can be
easily recalled
 further research suggestion: in the area of health behavior, preventative compliance by vivid
presentation of medical problems with easy-to-imagine terms

“The group-contagion effect: The influence of spatial groupings on perceived contagion and
preferences,” 
 Theoretical background of the study -> contagion theory
 arrangement of objects in a group changes people’s preference
 belief of different (be it good or bad) qualities are contagious and transferable
 The research: good or bad quality in an object is transferable to others in the same group ->
“Group Contagion Effect”
 tables with balls, only difference is the arrangement of the balls
 win scenario: choose from table where balls are close together
 lose scenario: choose the table where balls are farther apart
 in case of a gain, closer objects have a higher likelihood of transferring positive attributes as
long as farther objects have a lower possibility of transferring negative attributes when
expecting loss.
 first study: subjects had to choose objects from contagious (close objects) and noncontagious
(objects farther apart) groups when these objects were perceived as being infused by gain or loss
 second study: to measure the level of contagion by heightening the probability of either gain or
loss situation
 Results: people prefer to choose from closely arranged groups of items when those items are
carrying promise of gain and they tend to choose from widely spaced items when facing the
probability of loss by those objects
 extended contagion theory: contagion can occur in a group without a clearly defined source of
 target, and contagion effect was more significant when the level of contagion was increased
 future studies: healthy eating

Discussion Questions:
1. Can you recall a situation from your everyday life when you used the Group Contagion
Effect?
2. How do you think group contagion theory can damage or improve a company’s image on the
market?

“Judging product effectiveness from perceived spatial proximity,” 

 Theoretical Background: product effectiveness judgement connected to causality
judgement
 Perceptual cues (spatial proximity)->casual link between events happening closer in
space
 “Closeness is strength of effect” metaphor
 physical contagion and essence transfer (source of contagion and product have
direct physical contact) -> positively affected product by person or item
 Main research: how the spatial proximity between advertisement images influences
judgement of product effectiveness
 The main hypothesis: the closer the images are the more effective the product is judged to
be
 Link between spatial proximity and casual relatedness
 Two events happen closer in space, people are more likely to perceive the casual link
between them

Examined How effective in task, how reliable, effective than similar products, trust
dymensions towards effectiveness, to what extent will it work, side effect likeliness
Experiment 1A Position of two product to be Without t-test
images (close vs. more effective diagnostic info,
far) when close judged
effectiveness
Experiment 1B two changes: position of product and effect image Product more effective
interchanged, when close, people
choose the hypothetical product or real acne choosing close
product condition: hyp.prod.
Experiment 2 Test basic effect Product Close images, Strength of
with another relatedness 0 to more effective relatedness:
product category 100 (mediation product pictures close,
analysis) more related
Experiment 3 Less vs. high Low knowledge: influenced Two-way
knowledge about High knowledge: not influenced ANOVA
the product
Experiment 4 casual processes vs. mechanical Mental exercise Mechanical
causal process before test group more
influenced
Experiment 5A Special proximity is dependent of Immediate effect Long-term effect
timing of the effect. (immediate vs. (close more (far more
long-term) effective) effective)
Experiment 5B Changed headlines in the advertisement-changed Same results as
expectation of effect Experiment 5A

 Fields of contribution: relationship between effectiveness judgement and casual reasoning,

literature on casual reasoning, managerial implications (advertising)
 Future research: role of side effects in effectiveness judgement
Discussion Question:
1. Among the following scenarios which product would be judged more effective in the eyes of
customers and why?
a. Product picture next to effect picture plus simple description of the product.
b. Product picture, headline about effect and description of product only.

“Probable cause: The influence of prior probabilities on forecasts and perceptions of magnitude,”
 Theoretical Background: Magnitude of benefit or harm of a product shapes consumers’
purchase decisions
 Prior (provided) probability information biases people’s magnitude judgements-> biased
by outcome’s prior probability
 Larger magnitude is beneficial for a person-> larger outcome to be perceived
 Main proposal: this phenomenon exists because an outcome is perceived more probable
when that outcome is generated by more powerful antecedents
 Expectations about outcome’s magnitude are shaped by the information provided
 formats of outcome magnitudes: visual, numeric, arithmetic
 10 studies:
 1A-1F: consumers forecasting and recognizing larger probabilities lead to larger
magnitude of an outcome; additionally, later unfolding is perceived as large as well
 Study 2: presumption of the same antecedent causes probability and it’s magnitude
 Study 3: impact of magnitude judgements on consumers’ intended behavior (not only
influenced to consume, but recommend as well)
 Study 4A: impact of magnitude judgement when participants were incentivized
 Study 4B: field study (click rate), probability-based magnitude judgements’ impact on
consumer
 Based on result: highlighting a product’s high chance of providing meaningful impact on the
outcome helps marketers to augment consumers’ perception of the magnitude of the
suggested impact, therefore increase sales
 Future research: contexts where contrast effect is generated rather than assimilation effect,
contexts where people are familiar with probability of a given antecedent generating an
outcome

Discussion Questions:
1. When buying a product in which case (product category) does probability of…
A. Producing a benefit
B. Producing a harm
…Influence you most in your purchase decision?
2. Given article examined that same antecedent caused an outcome’s probability and magnitude
as well, but there might be cases where this assumption does not stand. What could be such
cases?