PubMed · 4859606
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
S Vaisrub. 1974-01-14. Editorial: Ergo sum?. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4859606/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
When the probability of a single member of a set of mutually exclusive and exhaustive possibilities is judged, its alternatives are evaluated as a composite "residual" hypothesis. Support theory (Rottenstreich & Tversky, 1997; Tversky & Koehler, 1994) implies that the process of packing alternatives together in the residual reduces the perceived evidential support for the set of alternatives and consequently inflates the judged probability of the focal hypothesis. Previous work has investigated the global weights that determine the extent to which the overall evidential support for the alternatives is discounted by this packing operation (Koehler, Brenner, & Tversky, 1997). In the present investigation, we analyze this issue in greater detail, examining the local weights that measure the specific contribution of each component hypothesis included implicitly in the residual. We describe a procedure for estimating local weights and introduce a set of plausible properties that impose systematic ordinal relationships among local weights. Results from four experiments testing these properties are reported, and a local-weight model is developed that accounts for nearly all of the variance in the probability judgments in these empirical tests. Local weights appear to be sensitive both to the individual component with which they are associated and to the residual hypothesis in which the component resides.
We argue that goals serve as reference points and alter outcomes in a manner consistent with the value function of Prospect Theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Tversky & Kahneman, 1992). We present new evidence that goals inherit the properties of the value function-not only a reference point, but also loss aversion and diminishing sensitivity. We also use the value function to explain previous empirical results in the goal literature on affect, effort, persistence, and performance.