Organizations and governments around the globe are integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms across different sectors to enhance products and services, as well as to refine governance for citizens. There is a pressing need for a research agenda focused on developing a behavioral science of AI to gain insights into how the public perceives, evaluates, decides on, and interacts with AI technologies.
Why we need to study thinking and decision making under scarcity or poverty?
While some interests have been spread, we need a dedicated agenda – possibly rooted in developing countries like India to build up a research programme for cognition and decision making under scarcity and poverty
Sport as a Window into Decision-Making in Real Life
Sports can provide a useful lens for understanding decision-making in real life. In sports, decisions are made in real-time, under pressure, and with limited information, which mirrors many of the challenges individuals face in daily life.
How is influencer marketing impacting us?
Recogn, the research wing under Dentsu, the marketing consulting company, is a collaborative partner who has released the report. Know…
Public judgments and opinions about the adoption of XR technology in India
Content from Knowledge Partner Dentsu India has released its latest research report titled ‘Adoption of XR technology in India’. The…
Time to measure public perception and judgments about robots
Public perception of robots is a vital aspect of the entire field of social robotics. There is an increased understanding that user perceptions, attitudes, and expectations of the robots will impact acceptability.
A need to focus specifically on decision making among the elderly
Having a clear idea about how elderly people think can help us channel information and help them take decisions that might be beneficial to them (and sometimes the entire household as many of such people are also decision-makers for the family).
Lay, professional and Artificial Intelligence perspectives all say the same – number of lives in risky medical decisions matters in gain frames but not in loss frames
The number of lives moderated risk-aversion in gain frame (people were risk-neutral for low number of lives and risk-averse for high number of lives). However, in the loss frame, risk-seeking was observed irrespective of how many lives were at stake. This pattern was consistent across laypersons and medical professionals, further extended to preferences for choices that medical professionals and artificial intelligence programmes should make. It shows how valuation of lives can be dependent on decision frames and framing biases that could impact medical decisions, which in turn could impact health and wellbeing of citizens.
Are we loss averse for time? Valuing small gains versus losses of time during commutes
Using the vignette of urban commute apps, we tested a less explored aspect about whether people are loss averse for time – i.e. do losses of time loom larger than corresponding gains ? Challenging the apparent tautology, prospective gains loomed as larger or equal to losses for low magnitudes.