Ambiguity attitudes in qualitative contexts: The role of prior beliefs

Most studies of ambiguity aversion rely on experimental paradigms involving monetary bets. Thus, the extent to which ambiguity aversion occurs outside of such contexts is much less understood, particularly when the situation cannot easily be reduced to numerical terms. The present work seeks to understand whether people prefer to avoid ambiguous decisions in a variety of different qualitative domains (e.g., work, family, love, friendship, exercise, study, and health), and, if so, to determine the role played by prior beliefs in those domains. Across three studies, we presented participants with 24 vignettes and measured the degree to which they preferred risk to ambiguity in each. We also asked them for their prior probability estimates about the likely outcomes in the ambiguous events. Ambiguity aversion was observed in the vast majority of vignettes, but at different magnitudes. It was predicted by whether the vignette involved gain or loss as well as by people's prior beliefs; however, the heterogeneity between people meant that the role of prior beliefs was only evident in an individual-level analysis (i.e., not at the group level). Our results suggest that the desire to avoid ambiguity occurs in a wide variety of qualitative contexts but to different degrees for different people and may be partially driven by unfavorable prior estimates of the likely outcomes of the ambiguous events.     

Insights into computational thinking from think-aloud interviews: A systematic review

This systematic review examines 35 empirical studies featuring the use of think-aloud interviews in computational thinking (CT) research. Findings show that think-aloud interviews (1) are typically conducted in Computer Science classrooms and with K-12 students; (2) are usually combined with other exploratory CT assessment tools; (3) have the potential to benefit learners with special needs and identify the competency gaps through involving diverse participants; (4) are conducted in the absence of cognitive models and standard procedures; and (5) display insufficient definitional and methodological rigor. Theoretically, this review presents a systematic assessment about the application of think-aloud interviews in CT studies and identifies the limitations in existing CT-related think-aloud studies. Practically, this review serves as a reference for studying the cognitive processes during CT problem-solving and provides suggestions for CT researchers who intend to incorporate think-aloud interviews in their studies.     

Implicit and explicit COVID-19-vaccine harmfulness/helpfulness associations predict vaccine beliefs,intentions, and behaviors

We investigated the role of implicit and explicit associations between harm and COVID-19 vaccines using a large sample (N = 4668) of online volunteers. The participants completed a brief implicit association test and explicit measures to evaluate the extent to which they associated COVID-19 vaccines with concepts of harmfulness or helpfulness. We examined the relationship between these harmfulness/helpfulness COVID-19 vaccine associations and vaccination status, intentions, beliefs, and behavior. We found that stronger implicit and explicit associations that COVID-19 vaccines are helpful relate to vaccination status and beliefs about the COVID-19 vaccine. That is, stronger pro-helpful COVID-19 vaccine associations, both implicitly and explicitly, related to greater intentions to be vaccinated, more positive beliefs about the vaccine, and greater vaccine uptake.     

Coping with COVID: Use,factor structure,and health behavior implications of specific emotion regulation strategies during the coronavirus pandemic

This series of studies examined U.S. individuals' use of specific emotion regulation/coping strategies during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, investigated the factor structure among strategies during this universally experienced stressor, and the extent to which these factors predicted engagement in COVID-related health-promoting behaviors. In Study 1, participants (N = 520) rated their use of 17 strategies for coping with pandemic-related stress during the past 24 h. Differences emerged in strategy use across demographic groups (age, race, income). Results of exploratory factor analysis suggest a factor structure grouping strategies in terms of goals beyond emotion regulation per se, rather than phases of the emotion process or a binary adaptive versus maladaptive distinction. In Study 2 (N = 264), participants reported daily on their coping strategy use and weekly on their engagement in COVID-specific health behaviors for 22 days. Results of confirmatory factor analysis replicate the factor structure found in Study 1. Some significant associations of coping strategy use with health-promoting behaviors were observed, but these were sporadic and largely involved baseline measures rather than predicting change over time. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.