These two are different. Yes,they’re the same: Choice blindness for facial identity

We examined the manipulability of face identity judgements by combining a sorting task for unfamiliar faces with a standard test of choice blindness. In Experiment 1, 50 participants completed a sorting task and then justified grouping specific pairs of photos together or apart. On manipulated trials, the presented pairings were different from those the participants had actually produced. Detection rates for these identity manipulations were strikingly low (∼21%). Moreover, participants readily provided justifications for identity decisions that they had not made, typically referring to specific facial features. Experiment 2 was conducted along similar lines and confirmed that lower task difficulty and higher confidence in one’s face identity judgements increase detection rates. We conclude that observers can easily be led to believe that they made identity judgements they did not make. As well as underscoring the fragility of unfamiliar face matching, our findings have implications for identity judgements in legal settings.     

Weighing Outcomes by Time or Against Time? Evaluation Rules in Intertemporal Choice

Models of intertemporal choice draw on three evaluation rules, which we compare in the restricted domain of choices between smaller sooner and larger later monetary outcomes. The hyperbolic discounting model proposes an alternative‐based rule, in which options are evaluated separately. The interval discounting model proposes a hybrid rule, in which the outcomes are evaluated separately, but the delays to those outcomes are evaluated in comparison with one another. The tradeoff model proposes an attribute‐based rule, in which both outcomes and delays are evaluated in comparison with one another: People consider both the intervals between the outcomes and the compensations received or paid over those intervals. We compare highly general parametric functional forms of these models by means of a Bayesian analysis, a method of analysis not previously used in intertemporal choice. We find that the hyperbolic discounting model is outperformed by the interval discounting model, which, in turn, is outperformed by the tradeoff model. Our cognitive modeling is among the first to offer quantitative evidence against the conventional view that people make intertemporal choices by discounting the value of future outcomes, and in favor of the view that they directly compare options along the time and outcome attributes.     

Active involvement,not illusory control,increases risk taking in a gambling game

The research considers the influence of choice (the possibility for the player to choose a gamble or another) and involvement (the physical interaction with the gambling device) on risk taking in gambling games and whether this influence is mediated by illusory control over the outcome of the gamble. Results of a laboratory experiment (n = 100) show that (a) although choice does increase illusory control, this influence does not translate in increased risk taking, and (b) whilst involvement does increase risk taking, this effect is not mediated by illusory control. These results are discussed in relation to problem gambling, beliefs in the deployability of personal luck, and arousal approaches to risk taking.     

When waiting to choose increases patience

We explore how waiting to choose influences patience. We propose that waiting to make an intertemporal choice increases the assumed value of the items for which people are waiting, leading them to become more patient. Five studies support this model. Study 1 finds that after waiting to choose, people exhibit greater patience than if they had not waited or before they had started to wait. Studies 2a and 2b find that increased valuation (rather than decreased cost of the wait) mediates the impact of waiting on patience. Study 3 further finds that whereas waiting to choose increases preference for a larger-later (over smaller-sooner) item, it also increases willingness to pay to expedite delivery of a single item. Finally, study 4 shows the waiting effect is stronger for hedonic than for utilitarian products. These studies modify existing theory by identifying the conditions under which waiting to choose can improve patience.     

Social cognitive model of adjustment to engineering majors: Longitudinal test across gender and race/ethnicity

We conducted a longitudinal test of a social cognitive model of academic adjustment in a sample of 732 engineering students. The model, designed to explain students' satisfaction with and intentions to persist in their majors, integrated features of social cognitive career theory's (SCCT) segmental models of satisfaction, interest, choice, and performance (Lent & Brown, 2006; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994). Students completed measures of academic support, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, interests, satisfaction, positive affect, and intended persistence at three time points (at the end of their second, third, and fourth semesters in engineering). A bidirectional version of the model offered good fit to the data, both in the larger sample and across gender and racial/ethnic groups. Self-efficacy was the most reliable direct predictor of academic satisfaction and intended persistence across the third and fourth semesters, though other social cognitive variables also contributed, either directly or indirectly, to predictions at one time point or the other. We consider implications of the findings for further research and practice on academic adjustment and persistence in STEM fields.     

Help or hinder? When recommendation signage expands consideration sets and heightens decision difficulty

This research examines whether recommendation signage helps or hinders the consumer when faced with choosing from large product assortments. In spite of frequent usage and retailer intuition suggesting that providing recommendation signs (e.g., “Best Seller,” “Award Winner”) should help consumers in the choice process, we propose that signs can hinder choice for consumers with more developed preferences by adding to the complexity and difficulty of the decision process. In three experiments using horizontally differentiated products in multiple categories, we provide evidence that recommendation signs create preference conflict for consumers with more developed preferences, leading these consumers to form larger consideration sets and ultimately experience more difficulty from the decision-making process. In addition, we show that these effects are mitigated for consumers with less developed preferences and when the choice is from a small assortment. The results suggest that recommendation signage may not be an effective tool for aiding choice from large assortments; instead signage can exacerbate the difficulties associated with having too many choices, with implications on purchase quantity.     

Selective versus comparative processing

Simonson et al. (forthcoming) propose a new theory of comparison selection that explains which particular alternatives will be considered in a wide variety of judgment and choice tasks. Comparison selection depends on the latitude of acceptance, comparison fluency, and the interaction between these factors. Importantly, these factors integrate a wide variety of seemingly unrelated variables, and the theory is useful for generating novel hypotheses. However, because comparative processing occurs relatively infrequently, it is important to take a step back and specify the conditions under which comparative processing is likely to occur. Comparative processing is likely only when the motivation and the opportunity to process information carefully are high, when consumers lack knowledge about distributional standards, or when stimulus-based judgment is likely. The two types of processes have different antecedents, consequences, and implications for debiasing.     

Dialogue with Elizabeth Seale-Scott,Director, Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives,U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

SUMMARY

In an effort to fully understand the role of the office of Faith-Based Community Initiatives, in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Drs. Netting and Ellor went to Washington, DC and interviewed the Director, Elizabeth Seale-Scott. This important dialogue is recorded here to further understand particularly the role of this office as it impacts the Administration on Aging and Aging programs.     

Rich deontic logic: a preliminary study

This paper begins the development of new types of deontic operators, particularly ones whose semantic characterization is based on models with forward-branching time. In such models, supplemented by a choice function to model human agency, and an obligation function to introduce normative features, it is possible to develop a rich language with a variety of obligation operators, differing from one another in how they relate to time, and to the causal conditions, the causal consequences, and the logical consequences of actions. We approach these concepts making extensive use of the notion of a transition, as introduced in [M. Xu, Synthese 112 (1997) 137].