Lewend
@lewend.bsky.social
Trying to understand how we think and feel, in an open and reproducible way. Associate professor in organizational behavior at OsloMet and post-doc in behavioral economics at Linköping University.
I'd say 9 rejections is pretty cool yes😄
June 8, 2025 at 3:56 PM
I'd say 9 rejections is pretty cool yes😄
Huge thanks to:
Editor Michał Białek for recognizing the value of publishing this kind of work!
And Linda Lai for her support and for inviting me to work with brilliant executive students at BI Norwegian Business School who helped with data collection!
Editor Michał Białek for recognizing the value of publishing this kind of work!
And Linda Lai for her support and for inviting me to work with brilliant executive students at BI Norwegian Business School who helped with data collection!
June 8, 2025 at 5:59 AM
Huge thanks to:
Editor Michał Białek for recognizing the value of publishing this kind of work!
And Linda Lai for her support and for inviting me to work with brilliant executive students at BI Norwegian Business School who helped with data collection!
Editor Michał Białek for recognizing the value of publishing this kind of work!
And Linda Lai for her support and for inviting me to work with brilliant executive students at BI Norwegian Business School who helped with data collection!
It’s great to see null findings like these published.
Hopefully, contributions like this can help build a more balanced and cumulative research base—currently, everything in this literature seems to be significant.
Hopefully, contributions like this can help build a more balanced and cumulative research base—currently, everything in this literature seems to be significant.
June 8, 2025 at 5:59 AM
It’s great to see null findings like these published.
Hopefully, contributions like this can help build a more balanced and cumulative research base—currently, everything in this literature seems to be significant.
Hopefully, contributions like this can help build a more balanced and cumulative research base—currently, everything in this literature seems to be significant.
Of course, these null results might be task-specific (hypothetical, one-shot, no incentives), context-dependent, or related to recipient type.
But given existing theories + prior findings, the lack of effects here is still surprising.
But given existing theories + prior findings, the lack of effects here is still surprising.
June 8, 2025 at 5:59 AM
Of course, these null results might be task-specific (hypothetical, one-shot, no incentives), context-dependent, or related to recipient type.
But given existing theories + prior findings, the lack of effects here is still surprising.
But given existing theories + prior findings, the lack of effects here is still surprising.
But: Participants in all experiments remained susceptible to the classic loss vs. gain framing effect.
June 8, 2025 at 5:59 AM
But: Participants in all experiments remained susceptible to the classic loss vs. gain framing effect.
Only the financial advisors did demonstrate lower risk-seeking when deciding between investment plans for (hypothetical) clients vs for themselves, and lower reliance on intuition (i.e., gut feelings).
June 8, 2025 at 5:59 AM
Only the financial advisors did demonstrate lower risk-seeking when deciding between investment plans for (hypothetical) clients vs for themselves, and lower reliance on intuition (i.e., gut feelings).
Overall, there was extremely weak evidence for self-other differences among these professionals.
Even in a larger and more general sample, no effects.
Deciding for others didn’t change:
• risk preferences
• analytical or intuitive processing
• emotional intensity or valence
Even in a larger and more general sample, no effects.
Deciding for others didn’t change:
• risk preferences
• analytical or intuitive processing
• emotional intensity or valence
June 8, 2025 at 5:59 AM
Overall, there was extremely weak evidence for self-other differences among these professionals.
Even in a larger and more general sample, no effects.
Deciding for others didn’t change:
• risk preferences
• analytical or intuitive processing
• emotional intensity or valence
Even in a larger and more general sample, no effects.
Deciding for others didn’t change:
• risk preferences
• analytical or intuitive processing
• emotional intensity or valence
Across 4 preregistered experiments, professionals in Norway (financial advisors, hospital leaders, municipal leaders) completed hypothetical risky choice tasks tailored to their work contexts. They then reported intuitive and analytical processing (+ response time), and affect.
June 8, 2025 at 5:59 AM
Across 4 preregistered experiments, professionals in Norway (financial advisors, hospital leaders, municipal leaders) completed hypothetical risky choice tasks tailored to their work contexts. They then reported intuitive and analytical processing (+ response time), and affect.
This study tested whether professional decision-makers (who regularly decide for others) also show such self-other differences in decision-making.
June 8, 2025 at 5:59 AM
This study tested whether professional decision-makers (who regularly decide for others) also show such self-other differences in decision-making.
Example: simply imagining that you are deciding for someone else can eliminate loss aversion—one of the most robust findings in behavioral science.
June 8, 2025 at 5:59 AM
Example: simply imagining that you are deciding for someone else can eliminate loss aversion—one of the most robust findings in behavioral science.
It’s well established that people approach risky decisions differently when deciding for themselves vs. for others.
A common idea is that we become more emotionally detached and objective when deciding for others—like how it’s easier to advise a friend than yourself.
A common idea is that we become more emotionally detached and objective when deciding for others—like how it’s easier to advise a friend than yourself.
June 8, 2025 at 5:59 AM
It’s well established that people approach risky decisions differently when deciding for themselves vs. for others.
A common idea is that we become more emotionally detached and objective when deciding for others—like how it’s easier to advise a friend than yourself.
A common idea is that we become more emotionally detached and objective when deciding for others—like how it’s easier to advise a friend than yourself.