Pub Date : 2022-07-01DOI: 10.1017/s1930297500008913
Büşra Elif Yelbuz, Ecesu Madan, Sinan Alper
One of the many established predictors of conspiracy beliefs is reflective thinking, but no meta-analysis so far has examined this relationship. In the current meta-analysis of published and unpublished correlational data (145 samples, 181 effect sizes), we found a significant negative association between reflective thinking and conspiracy beliefs with a medium-level effect size (r = –.189) . Similar levels of correlations were found across different types of measures (self-report vs. performance-based) and conspiracy beliefs (generic vs. specific). Further, no evidence suggested publication bias in this body of work. Suggestions for future research are discussed.
{"title":"Reflective thinking predicts lower conspiracy beliefs: A meta-analysis","authors":"Büşra Elif Yelbuz, Ecesu Madan, Sinan Alper","doi":"10.1017/s1930297500008913","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500008913","url":null,"abstract":"One of the many established predictors of conspiracy beliefs is reflective thinking, but no meta-analysis so far has examined this relationship. In the current meta-analysis of published and unpublished correlational data (145 samples, 181 effect sizes), we found a significant negative association between reflective thinking and conspiracy beliefs with a medium-level effect size (r = –.189) . Similar levels of correlations were found across different types of measures (self-report vs. performance-based) and conspiracy beliefs (generic vs. specific). Further, no evidence suggested publication bias in this body of work. Suggestions for future research are discussed.","PeriodicalId":48045,"journal":{"name":"Judgment and Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42155044","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-01DOI: 10.1017/s1930297500008895
Esther Boissin, Serge Caparos, Aikaterini Voudouri, Wim De Neys
Whereas people’s reasoning is often biased by intuitive stereotypical associations, recent debiasing studies suggest that performance can be boosted by short training interventions that stress the underlying problem logic. The nature of this training effect remains unclear. Does training help participants correct erroneous stereotypical intuitions through deliberation? Or does it help them develop correct intuitions? We addressed this issue in four studies with base-rate neglect and conjunction fallacy problems. We used a two-response paradigm in which participants first gave an initial intuitive response, under time pressure and cognitive load, and then gave a final response after deliberation. Studies 1A and 2A showed that training boosted performance and did so as early as the intuitive stage. After training, most participants solved the problems correctly from the outset and no longer needed to correct an initial incorrect answer through deliberation. Studies 1B and 2B indicated that this sound intuiting persisted over at least two months. The findings confirm that a short training can debias reasoning at an intuitive “System 1” stage and get reasoners to favour logical over stereotypical intuitions.
{"title":"Debiasing System 1: Training favours logical over stereotypical intuiting","authors":"Esther Boissin, Serge Caparos, Aikaterini Voudouri, Wim De Neys","doi":"10.1017/s1930297500008895","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500008895","url":null,"abstract":"Whereas people’s reasoning is often biased by intuitive stereotypical associations, recent debiasing studies suggest that performance can be boosted by short training interventions that stress the underlying problem logic. The nature of this training effect remains unclear. Does training help participants correct erroneous stereotypical intuitions through deliberation? Or does it help them develop correct intuitions? We addressed this issue in four studies with base-rate neglect and conjunction fallacy problems. We used a two-response paradigm in which participants first gave an initial intuitive response, under time pressure and cognitive load, and then gave a final response after deliberation. Studies 1A and 2A showed that training boosted performance and did so as early as the intuitive stage. After training, most participants solved the problems correctly from the outset and no longer needed to correct an initial incorrect answer through deliberation. Studies 1B and 2B indicated that this sound intuiting persisted over at least two months. The findings confirm that a short training can debias reasoning at an intuitive “System 1” stage and get reasoners to favour logical over stereotypical intuitions.","PeriodicalId":48045,"journal":{"name":"Judgment and Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47017979","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-01DOI: 10.1017/s1930297500008901
M. Lee, Siqi Liu
Drafting is a competitive task in which a set of decision makers choose from a set of resources sequentially, with each resource becoming unavailable once selected. How people make these choices raises basic questions about human decision making, including people’s sensitivity to the statistical regularities of the resource environment, their ability to reason about the behavior of their competitors, and their ability to execute and adapt sophisticated strategies in dynamic situations involving uncertainty. Sports provides one real-world example of drafting behavior, in which a set of teams draft players from an available pool in a well-regulated way. Fantasy sport competitions provide potentially large data sets of drafting behavior. We study fantasy football drafting behavior from the 2017 National Football League (NFL) season based on 1350 leagues hosted by the http://sleeper.app platform. We find people are sensitive to some important environmental regularities in the order in which they draft players, but also present evidence that they use a more narrow range of strategies than is likely optimal in terms of team composition. We find little to no evidence for the use of the complicated but well-documented strategy known as handcuffing, and no evidence of irrational influence from individual-level biases for different NFL teams. We do, however, identify a set of circumstances for which there is clear evidence that people’s choices are strongly influenced by the immediately preceding choice made by a competitor.
{"title":"Drafting strategies in fantasy football: A study of competitive sequential human decision making","authors":"M. Lee, Siqi Liu","doi":"10.1017/s1930297500008901","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500008901","url":null,"abstract":"Drafting is a competitive task in which a set of decision makers choose from a set of resources sequentially, with each resource becoming unavailable once selected. How people make these choices raises basic questions about human decision making, including people’s sensitivity to the statistical regularities of the resource environment, their ability to reason about the behavior of their competitors, and their ability to execute and adapt sophisticated strategies in dynamic situations involving uncertainty. Sports provides one real-world example of drafting behavior, in which a set of teams draft players from an available pool in a well-regulated way. Fantasy sport competitions provide potentially large data sets of drafting behavior. We study fantasy football drafting behavior from the 2017 National Football League (NFL) season based on 1350 leagues hosted by the http://sleeper.app platform. We find people are sensitive to some important environmental regularities in the order in which they draft players, but also present evidence that they use a more narrow range of strategies than is likely optimal in terms of team composition. We find little to no evidence for the use of the complicated but well-documented strategy known as handcuffing, and no evidence of irrational influence from individual-level biases for different NFL teams. We do, however, identify a set of circumstances for which there is clear evidence that people’s choices are strongly influenced by the immediately preceding choice made by a competitor.","PeriodicalId":48045,"journal":{"name":"Judgment and Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44667678","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-01DOI: 10.1017/s1930297500008962
C. Schneider, A. Freeman, D. Spiegelhalter, S. van der Linden
Large-scale societal issues such as public health crises highlight the need to communicate scientific information, which is often uncertain, accurately to the public and policy makers. The challenge is to communicate the inherent scientific uncertainty — especially about the underlying quality of the evidence — whilst supporting informed decision making. Little is known about the effects that such scientific uncertainty has on people’s judgments of the information. In three experimental studies (total N=6,489), we investigate the influence of scientific uncertainty about the quality of the evidence on people’s perceived trustworthiness of the information and decision making. We compare the provision of high, low, and ambiguous quality-of-evidence indicators against providing no such cues. Results show an asymmetric relationship: people react more strongly to cues of low quality of evidence than they do to high quality of evidence compared to no cue. While responses to a cue of high quality of evidence are not significantly different from no cue; a cue of low or uncertain quality of evidence is accompanied by lower perceived trustworthiness and lower use of the information in decision making. Cues of uncertain quality of evidence have a similar effect to those of low quality. These effects do not change with the addition of a reason for the indicated quality level. Our findings shed light on the effects of the communication of scientific uncertainty on judgment and decision making, and provide insights for evidence-based communications and informed decision making for policy makers and the public.
{"title":"The effects of communicating scientific uncertainty on trust and decision making in a public health context","authors":"C. Schneider, A. Freeman, D. Spiegelhalter, S. van der Linden","doi":"10.1017/s1930297500008962","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500008962","url":null,"abstract":"Large-scale societal issues such as public health crises highlight the need to communicate scientific information, which is often uncertain, accurately to the public and policy makers. The challenge is to communicate the inherent scientific uncertainty — especially about the underlying quality of the evidence — whilst supporting informed decision making. Little is known about the effects that such scientific uncertainty has on people’s judgments of the information. In three experimental studies (total N=6,489), we investigate the influence of scientific uncertainty about the quality of the evidence on people’s perceived trustworthiness of the information and decision making. We compare the provision of high, low, and ambiguous quality-of-evidence indicators against providing no such cues. Results show an asymmetric relationship: people react more strongly to cues of low quality of evidence than they do to high quality of evidence compared to no cue. While responses to a cue of high quality of evidence are not significantly different from no cue; a cue of low or uncertain quality of evidence is accompanied by lower perceived trustworthiness and lower use of the information in decision making. Cues of uncertain quality of evidence have a similar effect to those of low quality. These effects do not change with the addition of a reason for the indicated quality level. Our findings shed light on the effects of the communication of scientific uncertainty on judgment and decision making, and provide insights for evidence-based communications and informed decision making for policy makers and the public.","PeriodicalId":48045,"journal":{"name":"Judgment and Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44557945","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-01DOI: 10.1017/s1930297500008925
Xavier Gassmann, Antoine Malézieux, E. Spiegelman, Jean-Christian Tisserand
This paper uses the COVID-19 health crisis to study how individual preferences respond to generalized traumatic events. We review previous literature on natural and man-made disasters. Using incentive-compatible tasks, we simultaneously estimate risk and ambiguity aversion, time discounting, present bias, and prudence parameters before, during, and after the COVID-19 lockdown in France. We find patience, risk aversion, and ambiguity aversion fell during lockdown, then gradually returned toward their initial levels 4 months later. These results have implications for health and economic policies, and deepen our understanding of the responses – and resilience – of economic preferences to traumatic events.
{"title":"Preferences after pan(dem)ics: Time and risk in the shadow of COVID-19","authors":"Xavier Gassmann, Antoine Malézieux, E. Spiegelman, Jean-Christian Tisserand","doi":"10.1017/s1930297500008925","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500008925","url":null,"abstract":"This paper uses the COVID-19 health crisis to study how individual preferences respond to generalized traumatic events. We review previous literature on natural and man-made disasters. Using incentive-compatible tasks, we simultaneously estimate risk and ambiguity aversion, time discounting, present bias, and prudence parameters before, during, and after the COVID-19 lockdown in France. We find patience, risk aversion, and ambiguity aversion fell during lockdown, then gradually returned toward their initial levels 4 months later. These results have implications for health and economic policies, and deepen our understanding of the responses – and resilience – of economic preferences to traumatic events.","PeriodicalId":48045,"journal":{"name":"Judgment and Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43643914","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-01DOI: 10.1017/s1930297500008950
T. Rebholz, Mandy Hütter
Although new information technologies and social networks make a wide variety of opinions and advice easily accessible, one can never be sure to get support on a focal judgment task. Nevertheless, participants in traditional advice taking studies are by default informed in advance about the opportunity to revise their judgment in the light of advice. The expectation of advice, however, may affect the weight assigned to it. The present research therefore investigates whether the advice taking process depends on the expectation of advice in the judge-advisor system (JAS). Five preregistered experiments (total N = 2019) compared low and high levels of advice expectation. While there was no evidence for expectation effects in three experiments with block-wise structure, we obtained support for a positive influence of advice expectation on advice weighting in two experiments implementing sequential advice taking. The paradigmatic disclosure of the full procedure to participants thus constitutes an important boundary condition for the ecological study of advice taking behavior. The results suggest that the conventional JAS procedure fails to capture a class of judgment processes where advice is unexpected and therefore weighted less.
{"title":"The advice less taken: The consequences of receiving unexpected advice","authors":"T. Rebholz, Mandy Hütter","doi":"10.1017/s1930297500008950","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500008950","url":null,"abstract":"Although new information technologies and social networks make a wide variety of opinions and advice easily accessible, one can never be sure to get support on a focal judgment task. Nevertheless, participants in traditional advice taking studies are by default informed in advance about the opportunity to revise their judgment in the light of advice. The expectation of advice, however, may affect the weight assigned to it. The present research therefore investigates whether the advice taking process depends on the expectation of advice in the judge-advisor system (JAS). Five preregistered experiments (total N = 2019) compared low and high levels of advice expectation. While there was no evidence for expectation effects in three experiments with block-wise structure, we obtained support for a positive influence of advice expectation on advice weighting in two experiments implementing sequential advice taking. The paradigmatic disclosure of the full procedure to participants thus constitutes an important boundary condition for the ecological study of advice taking behavior. The results suggest that the conventional JAS procedure fails to capture a class of judgment processes where advice is unexpected and therefore weighted less.","PeriodicalId":48045,"journal":{"name":"Judgment and Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48530660","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-01DOI: 10.1017/s1930297500008937
Roy Shoval, N. Karsh, Baruch Eitam
To what degree do people prefer to choose for themselves and what drives this preference? Is it memory-based and results from a life-long association between choices and better outcomes, or is the process of choice itself reinforcing? In a new paradigm, across 6 experiments, participants experienced both ’Own Choice’ and ’Computer Picks’ conditions with identical outcomes before selecting which condition to re-experience in the final part of the experiment. Consistent with previous work, an overwhelming majority ( 83%) preferred own-choice. Several variations of the paradigm reveal that (1) Preference For Choice (PFC) is reduced when thinking about the task without actually choosing in it, (2) PFC is substantially reduced by choice-unrelated cognitive load, and (3) Preference For Choice is further diminished when selection is based on criteria other than one’s preferences. Across experiments, participants’ self-rated enjoyment predicted a significant portion of their PFC, while their perceived gains had little to no predictive value. If PFC stems solely from past reinforcement learning (i.e., memory) then neither performing another few scores of choices nor adding cognitive load to that sequence of choices would be expected to dramatically affect it. Hence, our findings suggest that a significant part of this preference stems from the process of choice itself, and that the experience it confers can itself be reinforcing. We discuss the implications of the proposed mechanism for PFC, which leads us to the prediction that PFC may be muted or even reversed under specific conditions and what this means for when the ‘opposite’ effect – sticking with the default – will occur.
{"title":"Choosing to choose or not","authors":"Roy Shoval, N. Karsh, Baruch Eitam","doi":"10.1017/s1930297500008937","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500008937","url":null,"abstract":"To what degree do people prefer to choose for themselves and what drives this preference? Is it memory-based and results from a life-long association between choices and better outcomes, or is the process of choice itself reinforcing? In a new paradigm, across 6 experiments, participants experienced both ’Own Choice’ and ’Computer Picks’ conditions with identical outcomes before selecting which condition to re-experience in the final part of the experiment. Consistent with previous work, an overwhelming majority ( 83%) preferred own-choice. Several variations of the paradigm reveal that (1) Preference For Choice (PFC) is reduced when thinking about the task without actually choosing in it, (2) PFC is substantially reduced by choice-unrelated cognitive load, and (3) Preference For Choice is further diminished when selection is based on criteria other than one’s preferences. Across experiments, participants’ self-rated enjoyment predicted a significant portion of their PFC, while their perceived gains had little to no predictive value. If PFC stems solely from past reinforcement learning (i.e., memory) then neither performing another few scores of choices nor adding cognitive load to that sequence of choices would be expected to dramatically affect it. Hence, our findings suggest that a significant part of this preference stems from the process of choice itself, and that the experience it confers can itself be reinforcing. We discuss the implications of the proposed mechanism for PFC, which leads us to the prediction that PFC may be muted or even reversed under specific conditions and what this means for when the ‘opposite’ effect – sticking with the default – will occur.","PeriodicalId":48045,"journal":{"name":"Judgment and Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46120661","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-01DOI: 10.1017/s1930297500003569
Garston Liang, T. Rakow, E. Yechiam, B. Newell
Using data from seven microworld experiments (N = 841), we investigated how participants reacted to simulated disasters with different risk profiles in a microworld. Our central focus was to investigate how the scale of a disaster affected the choices and response times of these reactions. We find that one-off large-scale disasters prompted stronger reactions to move away from the affected region than recurrent small-scale adverse events, despite the overall risk of a disaster remaining constant across both types of events. A subset of participants are persistent risk-takers who repeatedly put themselves in harm’s way, despite having all the experience and information required to avoid a disaster. Furthermore, while near-misses prompted a small degree of precautionary movement to reduce one’s subsequent risk exposure, directly experiencing the costs of the disaster substantially increased the desire to move away from the affected region. Together, the results point to ways in which laboratory risk-taking tasks can be used to inform the kinds of communication and interventions that seek to mitigate people’s exposure to risk.
{"title":"The day after the disaster: Risk-taking following large- and small-scale disasters in a microworld","authors":"Garston Liang, T. Rakow, E. Yechiam, B. Newell","doi":"10.1017/s1930297500003569","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500003569","url":null,"abstract":"Using data from seven microworld experiments (N = 841), we investigated how participants reacted to simulated disasters with different risk profiles in a microworld. Our central focus was to investigate how the scale of a disaster affected the choices and response times of these reactions. We find that one-off large-scale disasters prompted stronger reactions to move away from the affected region than recurrent small-scale adverse events, despite the overall risk of a disaster remaining constant across both types of events. A subset of participants are persistent risk-takers who repeatedly put themselves in harm’s way, despite having all the experience and information required to avoid a disaster. Furthermore, while near-misses prompted a small degree of precautionary movement to reduce one’s subsequent risk exposure, directly experiencing the costs of the disaster substantially increased the desire to move away from the affected region. Together, the results point to ways in which laboratory risk-taking tasks can be used to inform the kinds of communication and interventions that seek to mitigate people’s exposure to risk.","PeriodicalId":48045,"journal":{"name":"Judgment and Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49414659","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-01DOI: 10.1017/s1930297500003600
Sarah D. English, S. Denison, Ori Friedman
Machines are increasingly used to make decisions. We investigated people’s beliefs about how they do so. In six experiments, participants (total N = 2664) predicted how computer and human judges would decide legal cases on the basis of limited evidence — either individuating information from witness testimony or base-rate information. In Experiments 1 to 4, participants predicted that computer judges would be more likely than human ones to reach a guilty verdict, regardless of which kind of evidence was available. Besides asking about punishment, Experiment 5 also included conditions where the judge had to decide whether to reward suspected helpful behavior. Participants again predicted that computer judges would be more likely than human judges to decide based on the available evidence, but also predicted that computer judges would be relatively more punitive than human ones. Also, whereas participants predicted the human judge would give more weight to individuating than base-rate evidence, they expected the computer judge to be insensitive to the distinction between these kinds of evidence. Finally, Experiment 6 replicated the finding that people expect greater sensitivity to the distinction between individuating and base-rate information from humans than computers, but found that the use of cartoon images, as in the first four studies, prevented this effect. Overall, the findings suggest people expect machines to differ from humans in how they weigh different kinds of information when deciding.
{"title":"Expectations of how machines use individuating information and base-rates","authors":"Sarah D. English, S. Denison, Ori Friedman","doi":"10.1017/s1930297500003600","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500003600","url":null,"abstract":"Machines are increasingly used to make decisions. We investigated people’s beliefs about how they do so. In six experiments, participants (total N = 2664) predicted how computer and human judges would decide legal cases on the basis of limited evidence — either individuating information from witness testimony or base-rate information. In Experiments 1 to 4, participants predicted that computer judges would be more likely than human ones to reach a guilty verdict, regardless of which kind of evidence was available. Besides asking about punishment, Experiment 5 also included conditions where the judge had to decide whether to reward suspected helpful behavior. Participants again predicted that computer judges would be more likely than human judges to decide based on the available evidence, but also predicted that computer judges would be relatively more punitive than human ones. Also, whereas participants predicted the human judge would give more weight to individuating than base-rate evidence, they expected the computer judge to be insensitive to the distinction between these kinds of evidence. Finally, Experiment 6 replicated the finding that people expect greater sensitivity to the distinction between individuating and base-rate information from humans than computers, but found that the use of cartoon images, as in the first four studies, prevented this effect. Overall, the findings suggest people expect machines to differ from humans in how they weigh different kinds of information when deciding.","PeriodicalId":48045,"journal":{"name":"Judgment and Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41543790","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-01DOI: 10.1017/s1930297500003557
Didrika S. van de Wouw, Ryan T. McKay, B. Averbeck, N. Furl
Undersampling biases are common in the optimal stopping literature, especially for economic full choice problems. Among these kinds of number-based studies, the moments of the distribution of values that generates the options (i.e., the generating distribution) seem to influence participants’ sampling rate. However, a recent study reported an oversampling bias on a different kind of optimal stopping task: where participants chose potential romantic partners from images of faces (Furl et al., 2019). The authors hypothesised that this oversampling bias might be specific to mate choice. We preregistered this hypothesis and so, here, we test whether sampling rates across different image-based decision-making domains a) reflect different over- or undersampling biases, or b) depend on the moments of the generating distributions (as shown for economic number-based tasks). In two studies (N = 208 and N = 96), we found evidence against the preregistered hypothesis. Participants oversampled to the same degree across domains (compared to a Bayesian ideal observer model), while their sampling rates depended on the generating distribution mean and skewness in a similar way as number-based paradigms. Moreover, optimality model sampling to some extent depended on the the skewness of the generating distribution in a similar way to participants. We conclude that oversampling is not instigated by the mate choice domain and that sampling rate in image-based paradigms, like number-based paradigms, depends on the generating distribution.
{"title":"Explaining human sampling rates across different decision domains","authors":"Didrika S. van de Wouw, Ryan T. McKay, B. Averbeck, N. Furl","doi":"10.1017/s1930297500003557","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500003557","url":null,"abstract":"Undersampling biases are common in the optimal stopping literature, especially for economic full choice problems. Among these kinds of number-based studies, the moments of the distribution of values that generates the options (i.e., the generating distribution) seem to influence participants’ sampling rate. However, a recent study reported an oversampling bias on a different kind of optimal stopping task: where participants chose potential romantic partners from images of faces (Furl et al., 2019). The authors hypothesised that this oversampling bias might be specific to mate choice. We preregistered this hypothesis and so, here, we test whether sampling rates across different image-based decision-making domains a) reflect different over- or undersampling biases, or b) depend on the moments of the generating distributions (as shown for economic number-based tasks). In two studies (N = 208 and N = 96), we found evidence against the preregistered hypothesis. Participants oversampled to the same degree across domains (compared to a Bayesian ideal observer model), while their sampling rates depended on the generating distribution mean and skewness in a similar way as number-based paradigms. Moreover, optimality model sampling to some extent depended on the the skewness of the generating distribution in a similar way to participants. We conclude that oversampling is not instigated by the mate choice domain and that sampling rate in image-based paradigms, like number-based paradigms, depends on the generating distribution.","PeriodicalId":48045,"journal":{"name":"Judgment and Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48161926","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：