Choosing what to choose from: Preference for inclusion over exclusion when constructing consideration sets from large choice sets

Decision making is a two‐stage process, consisting of, first, consideration set construction and then final choice. Decision makers can form a consideration set from a choice set using one of two strategies: including the options they wish to further consider or excluding those they do not wish to further consider. The authors propose that decision makers have a relative preference for an inclusion (vs. exclusion) strategy when choosing from large choice sets and that this preference is driven primarily by a lay belief that inclusion requires less effort than exclusion, particularly in large choice sets. Study 1 demonstrates that decision makers prefer using an inclusion (vs. exclusion) strategy when faced with large choice sets. Study 2 replicates the effect of choice set size on preference for consideration set construction strategy and demonstrates that the belief that exclusion is more effortful mediates the relative preference for inclusion in large choice sets. Studies 3 and 4 further support the importance of perceived effort, demonstrating a greater preference for inclusion in large choice sets when decision makers are primed to think about effort (vs. accuracy; Study 3) and when the choice set is perceived as requiring more effort because of more information being presented about each alternative (vs. more alternatives in the choice set; Study 4). Finally, Study 5 manipulates consideration set construction strategy, showing that using inclusion (vs. exclusion) in large choice sets leads to smaller consideration sets, greater confidence in the decision process, and a higher quality consideration set.     

Correction to: Office Housework,Burnout, and Promotion: Does Gender Matter?

Journal of Business and Psychology - In the final version of the publication, the acknowledgement was missing. The data were supported by an ERC pilot grant, and they should be acknowledged.     

Pre‐registration is a Game Changer. But,Like Random Assignment,it is Neither Necessary Nor Sufficient for Credible Science

We identify 15 claims Pham and Oh (2020) make to argue against pre‐registration. We agree with 7 of the claims, but think that none of them justify delaying the encouragement and adoption of pre‐registration. Moreover, while the claim they make in their title is correct—pre‐registration is neither necessary nor sufficient for a credible science—this is also true of many our science’s most valuable tools, such as random assignment. Indeed, both random assignment and pre‐registration lead to more credible research. Pre‐registration is a game changer.     

Pre‐registration: Why and How

In this article, we (1) discuss the reasons why pre‐registration is a good idea, both for the field and individual researchers, (2) respond to arguments against pre‐registration, (3) describe how to best write and review a pre‐registration, and (4) comment on pre‐registration’s rapidly accelerating popularity. Along the way, we describe the (big) problem that pre‐registration can solve (i.e., false positives caused by p‐hacking), while also offering viable solutions to the problems that pre‐registration cannot solve (e.g., hidden confounds or fraud). Pre‐registration does not guarantee that every published finding will be true, but without it you can safely bet that many more will be false. It is time for our field to embrace pre‐registration, while taking steps to ensure that it is done right.     

Using the teaching interaction procedure to train interventionists to implement the Cool versus Not CoolTM procedure

The teaching interaction procedure is a behavior analytic procedure that has been used to target the development of social skills. The teaching interaction procedure consists of labeling the target skill, providing a meaningful rationale, describing the steps of the target skill, modeling the skill, role‐play, and providing feedback throughout the interaction. Although the teaching interaction procedure has been used to teach a variety of social skills for individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), it has only been used to train staff in two studies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of the teaching interaction procedure to teach three interventionists to implement the Cool versus Not Cool? procedure to target the development of social skills for children diagnosed with ASD. The results of a multiple baseline design demonstrated that the teaching interaction procedure was effective for all three interventionists. Results of the child participants' skill acquisition are also provided.     

Evaluating discrete trial teaching with instructive feedback delivered in a dyad arrangement via telehealth

Telehealth research in the field of applied behavior analysis (ABA) has focused on the training and supervision of others to implement various behavior analytic procedures. Current guidelines for practicing telehealth suggest that direct telehealth services may be appropriate for some individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, but more research is needed. This study evaluated the effects of discrete trial teaching with instructive feedback in a dyad arrangement delivered directly via telehealth to teach tact relations to 6 children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. All participants and the experimenter were located in different physical locations. All participants learned their primary and secondary targets, and 5 of the participants acquired the observational primary and secondary targets without direct teaching. Areas of future research and clinical implications are discussed in the context of telehealth service delivery.     

Flexible Utility Function Approximation via Cubic Bezier Splines

Psychometrika - In intertemporal and risky choice decisions, parametric utility models are widely used for predicting choice and measuring individuals’ impulsivity and risk aversion. However,...