The loss‐bet paradox: Actuaries,accountants, and other numerate people rate numerically inferior gambles as superior

Psychologists have convincingly demonstrated that preferences are not always stable and, instead, are often “constructed” based on information available in the judgment or decision context. In 4 studies with experts (accountants and actuaries in Studies 1 and 2, respectively) and a diverse lay population (Studies 3 and 4), the evidence was consistent with the highly numerate being more likely than the less numerate to construct their preferences by rating a numerically inferior bet as superior (i.e., the bets effect). Thus, the effect generalizes beyond a college student sample, and preference construction differs by numeracy. Contrary to prior thinking about preference construction, however, high expertise and high ability (rather than low) consistently related to the paradoxical phenomenon. Results across studies including Study 3's experimental modifications of the task supported the hypothesized number comparison process (and not a lack of expertise with monetary outcomes and probabilities or numeracy‐related differences in attention to numbers) as the effect's underlying cause. The bets effect was not attenuated by Study 4's instructions to think about what would be purchased with bet winnings. Task results combined with free‐response coding supported the notion that highly numerate participants have a systematic and persistent inclination for doing simple and complex number operations that drive their judgments (even after controlling for nonnumeric intelligence). Implications for 3 types of dual‐process theories are discussed. The results were inconsistent with default‐interventionist theories, consistent or unclear with respect to fuzzy trace theory, and consistent with interactive theories.     

Feeling of knowing and duration of unsuccessful memory search

Five experiments examined the impact of feeling of knowing on decisions to continue or to terminate the search of memory in question answering. First, two pairs of experiments respectively scrutinized knowledge about (1) ordinary facts and (2) national capitals. The first experiment of each pair extracted normative data: The participants indicated whether they had probably once known the answer to a question (once-knew-it scale), supplied the answer if they knew it, and either judged the likelihood of their recognizing the answer or made other pertinent metacognitive judgments. In these norming experiments, recognition ratings were highly correlated with once-knew-it responses, and both measures were highly predictive of performance. Thisindicated that both measures reflect feeling of knowing judgments. In the second experiment of each pair, different participants were timed as they indicated whether they knew the answer to the same questions. Responselatencies for responding "don't know" were strongly positively correlated with the once-knew-it judgments made by the norming participants. This relationship was corroborated by Experiment 5, which compared the crucial measures within participants. These outcomes suggest that, in this context, feeling of knowing judgments are predictive of how long people will search memory for requested information.     

Reviews,expectations, and the experience of stories

ABSTRACT

Theory suggests that information encountered prior to a story affects the actual experience of the story due to elicited expectations. In two experiments (N = 100; N = 167) short movies that were introduced with a positive review yielded higher transportation scores than the same movies introduced with a more negative (or neutral) review. Mediation analyses indicate that the reviews had an influence on recipients’ expectations, which in turn predicted the experience of the movie. Using the more fine-grained narrative engagement scale, we found evidence for a consistent effect on narrative presence, whereas the influence on emotional engagement, narrative understanding, and attentional focus varied between experiments. Moderation analyses (moderated mediation) showed that recipient’s opinion seeking and need for cognitive closure were unrelated to the influence of reviews on expectations and the link between expectations and narrative experience. Our findings add to the theory of story processing and they are of practical relevance for everyone who intends to influence recipients’ experience of narrative worlds.