Subjective valuations determine the demand for information. Users formulated value judgments regarding information are important for the design of information systems. This paper focuses on information as content. We begin with the "Endowment Effect" extension of "Prospect Theory". In a simple computer simulated business game, two groups of fourteen and seventeen participants simulated a management task in which they were provided opportunities to buy or sell information. The bidding mechanism was incentive compatible. Results show that, in agreement with Endowment Effect theory, people value information they own much more than information not owned by them. Our findings indicate a place for the subjective value of information on the WTA/WTP ratio continuum that emerges from pertinent literature. The ratio for information is similar to that of market goods. Participants had a strong inclination to purchase but not to sell information although the profit data suggests that the use of information had no objective benefit for profit-making. This preference is attributed to risk aversion rather than to loss aversion which is the most widely-accepted explanation of the Endowment Effect. 3

Value judgments about information and its value are vital for a functioning information society. Subjective valuations, formulated by individuals determine the demand for information and trading in it. Theoretically, these subjective value determinations should be influenced by ownership rights, a phenomenon coined the "Endowment Effect" in psychological study of trading situations. This study examines the Endowment Effect in the context of evaluating information. In a simple computer simulated game fifty five participants conducted a task in which they were provided opportunities to buy or sell information. The bidding mechanism was incentive compatible. Results show that, in agreement with Endowment Effect theory, people value information they own much more than information not owned by them. Our findings indicate that the ratio between Willingness to Accept (WTA) and Willingness to Purchase (WTP) for information is similar to that for market goods, and as with market goods, other than rational. Participants exhibited a strong inclination to purchase but not to sell information even though profit data suggests that the use of information had no objective benefit for profit-making. This preference is attributed to risk aversion rather than to loss aversion which is the most widely-accepted explanation of the Endowment Effect. Holding on to information and undertrade in it have strong implications for the information society.

Experimental psychology provides a drastically different picture of human abilities, motives, and behavior from that which predominates economic analyses. Individual preferences are normatively assumed to be well-ordered and consistent, but descriptively shown to be inconsistent and malleable. Not having at their disposal clear and reliable procedures for assigning values to options, people need to construct their preferences in the context of decision, which is rife with, among other things, conflict, emotion, contextual influences, and shifts in perspective and attention. Like many other traits and behaviors, preference inconsistency is the outcome not of distracted shortcuts or avoidable errors, but of fundamental aspects of mental life that are central to how people process information. Thus, it may help to think of individual decision makers not as faulty economic agents, but as fundamentally different creatures.

The contributors have asserted their moral rights. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of the publisher, nor be circulated in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published. Typeset, printed and bound by:

There is a prevalent claim in the judgment and decision making (JDM) literature that attention to a piece of information confers weight or importance upon that information. The prevalence of that claim is not commensurate with the empirical evidence – the quantity of evidence is sparse, and, is constrained by significant limitations in the methodological approach of previous studies. The current work presents a novel method for covertly manipulating attention to different components of a decision scenario. Using this approach, the current work provides empirical evidence from three multiattribute scenarios in support of a consistent, positive causal relationship between the attention allocated to a piece of information and the influence accorded to it. In addition, the current work demonstrates the viability of crowdsourcing psychological research, including research that involves significant perceptual components.

The desire for positive self-view may lead people, sometimes, to self-deception. Previous studies demonstrated that such deception takes the form of selective memory search, rationalizing opposing arguments and distorted self-signaling. This study identifies a new mechanism – “accidentally ” eliminating the interpretation that poses a threat to the positive self-view. Specifically, we show that when the individual is motivated to act in a way that does not resonate well with her self-perception, she is likely to adopt a careless behavior that may change the circumstances and “remove ” the negative interpretation from the desired action. In our experiment individuals tend to act more recklessly with their belonging if an opportunity to purchase a better product exists. Accidentally on Purpose People deceive themselves either for practical reasons such as advancing their influence on others (Trivers, 2002) or for sensible reasons such as the motivation to view oneself in a

This Provisional PDF corresponds to the article as it appeared upon acceptance. Fully formatted PDF and full text (HTML) versions will be made available soon. Sources of non-compliance with clinical practice guidelines in trauma triage: a decision science study Implementation Science 2012, 7:103 doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-103

Sources of non-compliance with clinical practice