Are lies more wrong than errors? Accuracy judgments of inaccurate statements

People are often mistaken when estimating and predicting quantities, and sometimes they report values that they know are false: they lie. There exists, however, little research devoted to how such deviations are being perceived. In four vignette studies, participants were asked to rate the accuracy of inaccurate statements about quantities (prices, numbers and amounts). The results indicate that overstatements are generally judged to be more inaccurate than understatements of the same magnitude; self-favorable (optimistic) statements are considered more inaccurate than unfavorable (pessimistic) statements, and false reports (lies) are perceived to be more inaccurate than equally mistaken estimates. Lies about the future did not differ from lies about the past, but own lies were perceived as larger than the same lies attributed to another person. It is suggested that estimates are judged according to how close they come to the true values (close estimates are more correct than estimates that are less close), whereas lies are judged as deviant from truth, with less importance attached to the magnitude of the deviation.     

Motor Programming Is Not the Only Process Which Can Influence RT

The current status of research on the memory drum theory is evaluated with emphasis on the issues raised by Marteniuk and MacKenzie (1981). A general theme emerging from this review is that response programming is not the only process which can influence RT and that distinguishing programming from non-programming effects clarifies rather than “clouds? the issues.     

Can > Will: Predictions of What Can Happen are Extreme,but Believed to be Probable

Predictions of uncertain events are often described in terms of what can or what will happen. How are such statements used by speakers, and what are they perceived to mean? Participants in four experiments were presented with distributions of variable product characteristics and were asked to generate natural, meaningful sentences containing either will or can. Will was typically associated with either low or intermediate numeric values, whereas can consistently suggested high (maximum) values. For instance, laptop batteries lasting from 1.5 to 3.5 hours will last for 1.5 hours or for 2.5 hours, but they can last for 3.5 hours. The same response patterns were found for positive and negative events. In will‐statements, the most frequent scalar modifiers were at least and about, whereas in can‐statements, the most frequent modifier included up to. A fifth experiment showed that will indicates an outcome that may be certain but more often simply probable. Can means possible, but even can‐statements are perceived to imply probable outcomes. This could create a communication paradox because most speakers use can to describe outcomes that because of their extremity are at the same time quite unlikely. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Do Maximizers Predict Better than Satisficers?

We examine the relationship between maximizing (i.e., seeking the best) versus satisficing (i.e., seeking the good enough) tendencies and forecasting ability in a real‐world prediction task: forecasting the outcomes of the 2010 FIFA World Cup. In Studies 1 and 2, participants gave probabilistic forecasts for the outcomes of the tournament and completed a measure of maximizing tendencies. We found that although maximizers expected themselves to outperform others much more than satisficers, they actually forecasted more poorly. Hence, on net, they were more overconfident about their relative performance. Decompositional analyses of overall accuracy revealed that differences in forecasting abilities were primarily driven by maximizers' tendency to give more noisy estimates. In Study 3, participants played a betting task where they could choose between safe and uncertain gambles linked to World Cup outcomes. Again, maximizers did more poorly and earned less, because of greater noise in their choice‐based responses. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Ranking Theory and Conditional Reasoning

Ranking theory is a formal epistemology that has been developed in over 600 pages in Spohn's recent book The Laws of Belief, which aims to provide a normative account of the dynamics of beliefs that presents an alternative to current probabilistic approaches. It has long been received in the AI community, but it has not yet found application in experimental psychology. The purpose of this paper is to derive clear, quantitative predictions by exploiting a parallel between ranking theory and a statistical model called logistic regression. This approach is illustrated by the development of a model for the conditional inference task using Spohn's (2013) ranking theoretic approach to conditionals.     

A belief in trend reversal requires access to cognitive resources

There are two research traditions studying people's reactions to random binary events: one concerns serial choice reaction times, the other concerns predictions of events in a series. The present studies focused on comparing expectations between these two approaches. We formed and tested a general hypothesis that, regardless of the type of task, when an individual faces a sequence of events they initially expect trend continuation. Only when people assume that a sequence is random might they override the default and expect trend reversal instead. In a series of experiments we found that limitation of access to cognitive resources enhances expectations of trend continuation. Our interpretation of this finding is that an expectation of trend continuation is the default for the human cognitive system and that a belief in trend reversal requires access to cognitive resources to overcome the tendency to expect trend continuation.     

From wealth to well-being? Money matters,but less than people think

While numerous studies have documented the modest (though reliable) link between household income and well-being, we examined the accuracy of laypeople's intuitions about this relationship by asking people from across the income spectrum to report their own happiness and to predict the happiness of others (Study 1) and themselves (Study 2) at different income levels. Data from two national surveys revealed that while laypeople's predictions were relatively accurate at higher levels of income, they greatly overestimated the impact of income on life satisfaction at lower income levels, expecting low household income to be coupled with very low life satisfaction. Thus, people may work hard to maintain or increase their income in part because they overestimate the hedonic costs of earning low levels of income.     

Age-related differences in metacognition for memory capacity and selectivity

ABSTRACT

Background: We compared two types of metacognitive monitoring in younger and older adults: metacognitive accuracy for their overall memory performance and their ability to selectively remember high-value information. Method: Participants studied words paired with point values and were asked to maximise their point score. In Experiment 1, they predicted how many words they would remember while in Experiment 2, they predicted how many points they would earn. Results: In Experiment 1, while younger adults were accurate in their predictions, older adults were overconfident in the number of words they would recall throughout the task. In Experiment 2, however, both younger and older adults were equally accurate when predicting the amount of points they would earn after some task experience. Conclusions: While younger adults may have higher metacognitive accuracy for their capacity, older adults can accurately assess their ability to selectively remember information, suggesting potentially separate metacognitive mechanisms that are differentially affected by aging.     

Predicting the evolution of counseling psychology in the United States: results from a Delphi poll of academic training directors

What might the field of counseling psychology in the United States of America look like 10 years from now? In a Delphi Poll, an expert panel, consisting of 28 training directors from APA-accredited counseling psychology programs, made predictions regarding the future of counseling psychology 10 years from now in relation to three domains (core features, research and training, and professional training) and 32 specific areas within those domains. The strongest core feature of counseling psychology was viewed as a continuing commitment to issues of diversity (M = 4.64, SD = .63); the research and training theme predicted to attract the most attention in the next 10 years was a commitment to evidence-based practice (M = 4.71, SD = 1.20); and the professional training theme predicted to gain the greatest focus was attention to professional competence (M = 4.43, SD = .65). Results were compared with a previous Delphi Poll conducted in 2001, and recommendations are outlined for future research designed to contribute to the ongoing development of the field of counseling psychology.     

Improving metacognition: A comparison of interventions

Accurate knowledge monitoring is critical to the learning process, as it allows one to regulate studying and test preparation. Thus, a number of investigations have attempted to improve metacognition in the classroom, with the ultimate goal of improving student exam performance. However, such interventions have had inconsistent success using varying paradigms. We compared the effectiveness of five interventions aimed at improving prediction accuracy in a laboratory environment: review, salient feedback, motivation warning lecture, incentives, and reflection. Only the salient feedback and the motivation warning lecture interventions significantly improved participants' prediction accuracy from test 1 to test 2. Review, incentives, and reflection did not improve predictive or postdictive calibration. Well‐timed salient feedback and a lecture warning students not to be biased by desired grades were effective methods of improving calibration accuracy. Results offer effective interventions to improve metacognition that could be used in a classroom setting.