Risk and uncertainty are inherent in life, and how people perceive, respond to, and manage both are topics of great aca-demic interest. One critical insight is that people distinguish between types of uncertainty (see, e.g., Fox & lkmen, 2011)and, consequently, may respond to objectively equally probabilistic events differently (e.g., with more polarized predic-tions of those events outcomes). The current work identifies another way in which risk (a specific form of uncertainty)is differentiated: on the basis of causal depth (Sloman, Love, & Ahn, 1998). Specifically, in contexts where an uncertainoutcome (e.g., win/lose) is determined by a causal chain, people tend to prefer for the uncertainty to arise at lower causaldepth within the chain (i.e., at later causal stages). This occurs even though the causal depth at which the uncertainty arisesmakes no difference in the overall probability that the causal chain will generate one outcome or another.

This work examines the extent to which people hold independent sequential events (e.g., players making correct/incorrect guesses) responsible for overall outcomes (e.g., the team winning/losing the game). Two types of events are found to garner the majority of responsibility for overall outcomes: (1) final events and (2) events that are perceived to disrupt momentum (e.g., an incorrect guess after a sequence of correct guesses). While previous research has shown that final events tend to be perceived as more responsible for overall outcomes, the current experiments are the first to document the role of perceived momentum on responsibility judgments. Specifically, we demonstrate that the effect is mediated by perceived momentum changes after the time of the event and moderated when exogenous factors (e.g., a delay between events) disrupt perceived momentum. We discuss how these findings relate to pivotality, the counterfactual simulation model, and the role of unexpectedness in responsibility judgments.

This work focuses on the impact of sharing contexts on consumers’ decision processes and purchase-amount decisions. Four studies, using both hypothetical and real (incentive-compatible) choices, find that people regularly purchase more in sharing (vs. non-sharing) contexts. Evidence is presented suggesting that a significant portion of this effect is driven by a cognitive bias arising in sharing contexts that focuses people on what they will give to others, and away from what they will receive from others. Consequences of this bias include the noted surplus in purchase amounts, over-consumption, and waste.