東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Default effects in the endorsement o...

Bent, Blake J.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Default effects in the endorsement of environmental policies.

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,印刷品 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Default effects in the endorsement of environmental policies./
作者:	Bent, Blake J.
面頁冊數:	56 p.
附註:	Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 52-06.
Contained By:	Masters Abstracts International52-06(E).
標題:	Psychology, Experimental. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=1525449
ISBN:	9781303994128

Default effects in the endorsement of environmental policies.
Bent, Blake J.

Default effects in the endorsement of environmental policies. - 56 p.

Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 52-06.

Thesis (M.S.)--Old Dominion University, 2014.

When making decisions, people are often presented with a default option. Across many different domains, individuals show an inflated preference for the default option, a phenomenon known as the default effect. The current research examined the default effect and the role of loss aversion and implied endorsement in the context of environmental policy. Two hundred nineteen undergraduate participants were asked to vote on an ostensible ballot question regarding the enactment of seven environmental policies. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions based on a manipulation of the default option: a default to enact the policy (the opt-out condition), a default to not enact the policy (the opt-in condition), and a forced-choice control condition. The current study found default effects to be present for three of the seven policies. Of these three policies, participants in the opt-out default condition endorsed the policy more often than participants in the opt-in or forced-choice condition. This pattern of results supports the endowment effect (i.e., an extension of loss aversion) as an explanation of default effects, but an explicit measure of loss aversion did not. Perceptions of policymaker endorsement did not differ across default conditions and political affiliation did not predict voting behavior.

ISBN: 9781303994128Subjects--Topical Terms:

517106
Psychology, Experimental.

Default effects in the endorsement of environmental policies.
LDR:02189nam a2200289 4500 001 1967189
005 20141112080238.5
008 150210s2014 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781303994128
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI1525449
035 $a AAI1525449
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Bent, Blake J. $3 2104133
245 1 0 $a Default effects in the endorsement of environmental policies.
300 $a 56 p.
500 $a Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 52-06.
500 $a Adviser: Philip Langlais.
502 $a Thesis (M.S.)--Old Dominion University, 2014.
520 $a When making decisions, people are often presented with a default option. Across many different domains, individuals show an inflated preference for the default option, a phenomenon known as the default effect. The current research examined the default effect and the role of loss aversion and implied endorsement in the context of environmental policy. Two hundred nineteen undergraduate participants were asked to vote on an ostensible ballot question regarding the enactment of seven environmental policies. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions based on a manipulation of the default option: a default to enact the policy (the opt-out condition), a default to not enact the policy (the opt-in condition), and a forced-choice control condition. The current study found default effects to be present for three of the seven policies. Of these three policies, participants in the opt-out default condition endorsed the policy more often than participants in the opt-in or forced-choice condition. This pattern of results supports the endowment effect (i.e., an extension of loss aversion) as an explanation of default effects, but an explicit measure of loss aversion did not. Perceptions of policymaker endorsement did not differ across default conditions and political affiliation did not predict voting behavior.
590 $a School code: 0418.
650 4 $a Psychology, Experimental. $3 517106
650 4 $a Psychology, General. $3 1018034
650 4 $a Psychology, Behavioral Sciences. $3 1669657
690 $a 0623
690 $a 0621
690 $a 0602
710 2 $a Old Dominion University. $3 1020684
773 0 $t Masters Abstracts International $g 52-06(E).
790 $a 0418
791 $a M.S.
792 $a 2014
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=1525449