Scope Neglect¶
Explain why elicited valuations stay flat across hundredfold changes in magnitude — the count is replaced by a single affect-laden prototype, so the number is understood but never priced in.
Core Idea¶
Scope neglect is the regularity that the value a person attaches to an outcome is strikingly insensitive to its magnitude. Asked to pay to save 2,000, 20,000, or 200,000 oiled birds, respondents return near-identical figures. The valuation tracks a single emotionally charged prototype — one drowning bird — not the count behind it. Kahneman and Frederick call this attribute substitution: a hard target (scope-weighted value) is swapped for an easy one (prototype affect).
Scope of Application¶
Scope neglect is a workhorse diagnostic across the valuation and risk subfields of judgment and decision-making, reaching within that domain, not across substrates.
- Contingent valuation in environmental economics — the home turf, failing the scope test.
- Charitable giving / identifiable-victim literature — flat donations in victim count.
- Risk perception and health communication — "thousands" versus "millions" elicit similar responses.
- Public-goods valuation and policy support — support fails to scale with stated reach.
- Jury awards — outrage tracks blameworthiness, not dollar magnitude.
Clarity¶
Without the label, a flat willingness-to-pay curve looks like a survey that "didn't work," inviting ad hoc explanations — bad sampling, hypothetical bias. With it, the analyst asks a sharp structural question: is the elicitation delivering magnitude in usable form, or harvesting prototype-keyed affect? That separates a genuine preference from a substitution artifact, and localizes the breakdown to valuation rather than comprehension or expression.
Manages Complexity¶
The stated-preference literature is a sprawl of anomalies — embedding, part–whole bias, probability insensitivity, the single–joint disparity. Scope neglect compresses a large slice into one regularity: valuation under affect-heavy single evaluation is flat in scope. An analyst then treats scope sensitivity as one measurable slope, and reasons from two parameters — how affect-heavy the representation, whether the format forces comparison — to predict when the anomaly appears.
Abstract Reasoning¶
Scope neglect licenses three moves, all from the substitution mechanism: diagnostic (a flat valuation implies an easier affect-based question was answered, predicting embedding and single–joint disparity); interventionist (change the form of magnitude — joint evaluation, forced trade-offs — and predict the slope steepens); and boundary-drawing (a figure passing the scope test enters cost–benefit analysis; one that fails cannot). The concept is a validity gate.
Knowledge Transfer¶
Within JDM the diagnostic transfers cleanly and literally: any numerical valuation of an affect-heavy outcome should be scope-tested, and the same fixes apply — the currency changes, the structure and remedies do not. To adjacent fields (marketing's price-evaluability work) transfer is partial, resting on shared mechanism. Beyond elicited valuation the phenomenon dissolves into its neighbors, so the load-bearing cross-domain weight is carried by the parent prime logarithmic_perception_and_encoding (with the flat case its saturated end).
Relationships to Other Abstractions¶
Current abstraction Scope Neglect Domain-specific
Parents (1) — more general patterns this builds on
-
Scope Neglect is part of Attribute Substitution Domain-specific
Scope neglect contains attribute substitution as its defining internal judgment operation: scope-weighted value is silently replaced by prototype affect, producing the flat magnitude response.
Hierarchy path (1) — routes to 1 parentless root
- Scope Neglect → Attribute Substitution → Relevance Substitution
Neighborhood in Abstraction Space¶
Scope Neglect sits in a sparse region of the domain-specific corpus (97th percentile for distinctiveness): few abstractions share its structure, so a faithful description tends to retrieve it precisely.
Family — Unclustered & Miscellaneous (309 abstractions)
Nearest neighbors
- IKEA Effect — 0.80
- Attribute Substitution — 0.80
- Halo Effect — 0.79
- Engel curve — 0.79
- Focusing Effect (Focusing Illusion) — 0.79
Computed from structural-signature embeddings · 2026-07-12