Seeing is not enough: manipulating choice options causes focusing and preference change in multiattribute risky decision‐making

We show that preferences depend on the attributes that can be directly manipulated when people need to integrate multiple sources of information because direct manipulation causes focusing bias. This effect appears even when all relevant information is simultaneously and explicitly presented at the time the decisions are made. Participants decided how much to save, what investment risk to take and observed the future financial consequences in terms of the mean and variability of the expected retirement income. Participants who manipulated only the future income distribution saved more and took less risk. This effect disappears when the risk‐related variables are removed, which indicates that task complexity is a mediator of such focusing effects. A more balanced trade‐off between the choice attributes was selected when all attributes were manipulated. However, when there is a dichotomy between manipulating versus observing choice attributes, then decisions were based mostly on the manipulated attributes. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Time takes space: selective effects of multitasking on concurrent spatial processing

Many everyday activities require coordination and monitoring of complex relations of future goals and deadlines. Cognitive offloading may provide an efficient strategy for reducing control demands by representing future goals and deadlines as a pattern of spatial relations. We tested the hypothesis that multiple-task monitoring involves time-to-space transformational processes, and that these spatial effects are selective with greater demands on coordinate (metric) than categorical (nonmetric) spatial relation processing. Participants completed a multitasking session in which they monitored four series of deadlines, running on different time scales, while making concurrent coordinate or categorical spatial judgments. We expected and found that multitasking taxes concurrent coordinate, but not categorical, spatial processing. Furthermore, males showed a better multitasking performance than females. These findings provide novel experimental evidence for the hypothesis that efficient multitasking involves metric relational processing.     

Nonparametric goodness-of-fit tests for the rasch model

A Monte Carlo algorithm realizing a family of nonparametric tests for the Rasch model is introduced which are conditional on the item and subject marginals. The algorithm is based on random changes of elements of data matrices without changing the marginals; most powerful tests against all alternative hypotheses are given for which a monotone characteristic may be computed from the data matrix; alternatives may also be composed. Computation times are long, but exactp-values are approximated with the quality of approximation only depending on calculation time, but not on the number of persons. The power and the flexibility of the procedure is demonstrated by means of an empirical example where, among others, indicators for increased item similarities, the existence of subscales, violations of sufficiency of the raw score as well as learning processes were found. Many of the features described are implemented in the program T-Rasch 1.0 by Ponocny and Ponocny-Seliger (1999).The author wishes to thank Alexander Kaba, Birgit Bukasa, and Ulrike Wenninger of Österreichisches Kuratorium für Verkehrssicherheit (Austrian Traffic Safety Board) for allowing a data set to be used for the empirical example, and Elisabeth Ponocny-Seliger and the reviewers for many helpful comments. The menu-driven program T-Rasch 1.0 by Ponocny and Ponocny-Seliger (1999) can be obtained from Assessment Systems Corporation (http: //www.assess.com) or from the authors. (Note that it also performs exact person fit tests.)     

A Proof System for Contact Relation Algebras

Contact relations have been studied in the context of qualitative geometry and physics since the early 1920s, and have recently received attention in qualitative spatial reasoning. In this paper, we present a sound and complete proof system in the style of Rasiowa and Sikorski (1963) for relation algebras generated by a contact relation.     

Perceptions of non‐target confronters in response to racist and heterosexist remarks

Research has established that targets who express disagreement with prejudicial comments directed toward their social group may be viewed negatively by those they confront or by members of social outgroups. Less research has examined how non‐target individuals who confront prejudicial remarks are perceived. The current studies were designed to examine how non‐targets who confronted racist (Study 1) and heterosexist (Study 2) comments would be perceived as a function of the level of offensiveness of the comment and the confrontation style used. The studies also examined whether confronting behavior would affect perceptions of the individual who made the prejudicial comment. Undergraduate participants read vignettes depicting a situation with a high or low offensive prejudicial comment in which a non‐target individual confronted assertively, unassertively, or not at all. Participants provided judgments of both individuals. Results indicated that non‐targets who confronted highly prejudicial comments either assertively or unassertively were liked and respected more than those who failed to confront. Additionally, commenters who were assertively confronted were respected less than commenters who were not. These findings suggest that non‐targets may be especially effective in confronting prejudicial comments, as they do not suffer the same negative consequences as targets who confront. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Can,and should,behavioural neuroscience influence public policy?

Recent years have seen enormous demand amongst policy makers for new insights from the behavioural sciences, especially neuroscience. This demand is matched by an increasing willingness on behalf of behavioural scientists to translate the policy implications of their work. But can neuroscience really help shape the governance of a nation? Or does this represent growing misuse of neuroscience to attach scientific authority to policy, plus a clutch of neuroscientists trying to overstate their findings for a taste of power?