Hierarchical models of simple mechanisms underlying confidence in decision making

Choice confidence is a central measure in psychological decision research, often being reported on a probabilistic scale. Simple mechanisms that describe the psychological processes underlying choice confidence, including those based on error and confirmation biases, have typically received support via fits to data averaged over subjects. While averaged data ease model development, they can also destroy important aspects of the confidence data distribution. In this paper, we develop a hierarchical model of raw confidence judgments using the beta distribution, and we implement two simple confidence mechanisms within it. We use Bayesian methods to fit the hierarchical model to data from a two-alternative confidence experiment, and we use a variety of Bayesian tools to diagnose shortcomings of the simple mechanisms that are overlooked when applied to averaged data. Bugs code for estimating the models is also supplied.     

Is the go/no-go lexical decision task preferable to the yes/no task with developing readers?

The lexical decision task is probably the most common laboratory visual word identification task together with the naming task. In the usual setup, participants need to press the “yes” button when the stimulus is a word and the “no” button when the stimulus is not a word. A number of studies have employed this task with developing readers; however, error rates and/or response times tend to be quite high. One way to make the task easier for young readers is by employing a go/no-go procedure: “If word, press ‘yes’; if not, refrain from responding.” Here we conducted a lexical decision experiment that systematically compared the yes/no and go/no-go variants of the lexical decision task with developing readers (second- and fourth-grade children). Results showed that (a) error rates for words and nonwords were much lower in the go/no-go task than in the yes/no task, (b) lexical decision times were substantially faster in the go/no-go task, and (c) there was less variability in the latency data of the go/no-go task for high-frequency words. Thus, the go/no-go lexical decision task is preferable to the “standard” yes/no task when conducting experiments with developing readers.     

A group construal account of drop-in-the-bucket thinking in policy preference and moral judgment

Decisions, both moral and mundane, about saving individuals or resources at risk are often influenced not only by numbers saved and lost, but also by proportions of groups saved and lost. Consider choosing between a program that saves 60 of 240 lives at risk and one that saves 50 of 100. The first option maximizes absolute number saved; the second, proportion saved. In two studies, we show that the influence of proportions on such decisions depends on how items at risk are mentally represented. In particular, we show that proportions have greater influence on people's decisions to the extent that the items at risk are construed as forming groups, as opposed to distinct individuals. Construal was manipulated by means of animated displays in which resources at risk moved either independently (promoting individual construal) or jointly (promoting group construal). Results support the hypothesis that (a) decision makers form mental representations which vary in the degree to which resources at risk are construed as groups versus individuals and (b) construal of resources as groups promotes the influence of proportions on decisions and moral judgments.     

Modeling the effect of reward amount on probability discounting

The present study with college students examined the effect of amount on the discounting of probabilistic monetary rewards. A hyperboloid function accurately described the discounting of hypothetical rewards ranging in amount from $20 to $10,000,000. The degree of discounting increased continuously with amount of probabilistic reward. This effect of amount was not due to changes in the rate parameter of the discounting function, but rather was due to increases in the exponent. These results stand in contrast to those observed with the discounting of delayed monetary rewards, in which the degree of discounting decreases with reward amount due to amount-dependent decreases in the rate parameter. Taken together, this pattern of results suggests that delay and probability discounting reflect different underlying mechanisms. That is, the fact that the exponent in the delay discounting function is independent of amount is consistent with a psychophysical scaling interpretation, whereas the finding that the exponent of the probability-discounting function is amount-dependent is inconsistent with such an interpretation. Instead, the present results are consistent with the idea that the probability-discounting function is itself the product of a value function and a weighting function. This idea was first suggested by Kahneman and Tversky (1979), although their prospect theory does not predict amount effects like those observed. The effect of amount on probability discounting was parsimoniously incorporated into our hyperboloid discounting function by assuming that the exponent was proportional to the amount raised to a power. The amount-dependent exponent of the probability-discounting function may be viewed as reflecting the effect of amount on the weighting of the probability with which the reward will be received.     

A Qualitative Analysis of Power Differentials in Ethical Situations in Academia

Power and organizational hierarchies are ubiquitous to social institutions that form the foundation of modern society. Power differentials may act to constrain or enhance people’s ability to make good ethical decisions. However, little scholarly work has examined perceptions of this important topic. The present effort seeks to address this issue by interviewing academics about hypothetical ethical problems that involve power differences among those involved. Academics discussed what they would do in these scenarios, often drawing on their own experiences. Using a think-aloud protocol, participants were prompted to discuss their reasoning and thinking behind their ethical decisions. These interview data were content analyzed using a semantic analysis program that identified a number of distinct ways that academics think about power differences and abuses in ethical situations. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

Rational Choice and Moral Decision Making in Research

University psychology and sociology researchers rated the likelihood they would engage in misconduct as described in 9 research scenarios, while also making moral judgments and rating the likelihood of discovery and sanctions. Multiple regression revealed significant effects across various scenarios for moral judgment as well as shame and embarrassment on reducing misconduct. The effects on misconduct of the perceived probability of sanctions were conditioned on moral judgments in some scenarios. The results have implications for how universities address the prevention, detection, and sanctioning of research misconduct.     

What a feeling! Touching sexually laden stimuli makes women seek rewards

We argue that women's previously documented unresponsiveness to sexual primes when making economic decisions may be a consequence of the specific types of primes that have been used (i.e., visual primes). In three studies we show that presenting women with tactile sexual cues does influence their decisions about economic rewards. Similar to the effect found in men, the first study demonstrates that touching a pair of boxer shorts leads to a craving for monetary rewards in women. In the second study it is shown that touching a pair of boxers makes women less loss averse for both money and food. The third study explicitly focuses on the relative effectiveness of tactile versus visual sexual cues in altering women's economic decisions, and reveals that women's willingness-to-pay for economic rewards increases only when the sexual cue is tactile. We suggest that touching (vs. seeing) sexually laden stimuli prompts pre-programmed consummatory Pavlovian responses that promote approaching economic rewards.     

Decision-specific reinvestment scale: An exploration of its construct validity,and association with stress and coping appraisals

ObjectiveThis research project aimed to explore the construct validity of the Decision-Specific Reinvestment Scale (DSRS); more specifically, its links with stress and coping appraisals.DesignStudy 1 validated the DSRS and the Movement-Specific Reinvestment Scale (MSRS) to the French language, in order to examine the construct validity of the DSRS using the MSRS, the Preference for Intuition and Deliberation (PID) inventory and the Melbourne Decision-Making Questionnaire (MDMQ). In addition, sex differences in reinvestment were investigated. Study 2 examined stress and coping appraisals of high and low reinvesters.MethodIn study 1, 379 athletes completed the DSRS, MSRS, PID, and MDMQ. In study 2, 100 handball players, classified as low and high reinvesters, completed surveys aimed to assess stressor intensity, stressor perceived controllability, coping effectiveness, subjective performance and coping strategies with the Coping Inventory for Competitive Sport over three games.ResultsIn study 1, we found that intuitive athletes scored lower on the DSRS in comparison to deliberative athletes, whilst no difference was found for the MSRS. Convergent and discriminant validity was illustrated with the subscales of the MDMQ. No sex differences were found regarding reinvestment. In study 2, findings showed that low reinvesters scored higher than high reinvesters in terms of stressor perceived controllability, coping effectiveness and subjective performance.DiscussionIn addition to confirmation of construct validity, these findings strengthen our understanding of how high decision reinvesters perceive a pressured situation. Key applications are derived from our findings informing coaches and athletes in offsetting the negative effects of reinvestment on sport performance.     

潜变量交互效应标准化估计：方法比较与选用策略

标准化估计对模型的解释和效应大小的比较有重要作用。虽然潜变量交互效应的恰当标准化估计公式已经面世超过10年, 国内外都在使用和引用, 但至今未见到关于不同估计方法得到的恰当标准化估计的系统比较。通过模拟实验, 比较了乘积指标法、潜调节结构方程(LMS)、无先验信息和有先验信息的贝叶斯法的潜变量交互效应标准化估计在不同条件下的表现。结果发现, 在正态条件下, LMS和有信息贝叶斯法表现较好; 而在非正态条件下, 乘积指标法比较稳健, 但需要较大的样本(不小于500), 小样本且外生潜变量之间相关很低时可使用无信息贝叶斯法。     

A method in modeling interactive pedestrian crossing and driver yielding decisions during their interactions at intersections

Investigating pedestrian crossing and driver yielding decisions should be an important focus considering the high risks of pedestrians in exposed to motorized traffic. Limitations, however, exist in previous studies – variables considered previously have been limited; how their behavior affect each other (defined as interactive impacts) were not sufficiently considered. This paper aims to provide a methodological approach for pedestrian crossing and driver yielding decisions during their interactions, considering of different variable types including interactive impact variables, traffic condition variables, road design variables, and environment variables. A Distance-Velocity (DV) framework proposed in an earlier study is introduced for definitions and concepts in studying pedestrian-vehicle interactions. Logistic regression, support vector machines, neural networks and random forests, are introduced as candidate models. A case study involving six crosswalk locations is conducted, focusing on interactions between pedestrians and right-turn vehicles. The proposed methodological approach is applied, with the performance of the four machine learning methods compared in terms of model generalization and confusion matrix. The model with the best performance is further compared to the typical gap-based model. Results show that random forest and logistic regression models performed the best in modeling pedestrian crossing and driver yielding decisions respective, in terms of model generalization. Besides, the DV-based modeling method (average accuracy of over 90% for pedestrians and 80% for drivers) outperformed the traditional gap-based method in all test seeds. As a key finding, interactive impacts from each other (the pedestrian and the driver) act as a key contributing variable on their decisions.