ABSTRACT
The susceptibility of decision-makers' choices to variations in option framing has been attributed to individual differences in cognitive style. According to this view, individuals who are prone to a more deliberate, or less intuitive, thinking style are less susceptible to framing manipulations. Research findings on the topic, however, have tended to yield small effects, with several studies also being limited in inferential value by methodological drawbacks. We report two experiments that examined the value of several cognitive-style variables, including measures of cognitive reflection, subjective numeracy, actively open-minded thinking, need for cognition, and hemispheric dominance, in predicting participants' frame-consistent choices. Our experiments used an isomorph of the Asian Disease Problem and we manipulated frames between participants. We controlled for participants' sex and age, and we manipulated the order in which choice options were presented to participants. In Experiment 1 (N = 190) using an undergraduate sample and in Experiment 2 (N = 316) using a sample of Amazon Mechanical Turk workers, we found no significant effect of any of the cognitive-style measures taken on predicting frame-consistent choice, regardless of whether we analyzed participants' binary choices or their choices weighted by the extent to which participants preferred their chosen option over the non-chosen option. The sole factor that significantly predicted frame-consistent choice was framing: in both experiments, participants were more likely to make frame-consistent choices when the frame was positive than when it was negative, consistent with the tendency toward risk aversion in the task. The present findings do not support the view that individual differences in people's susceptibility to framing manipulations can be substantially accounted for by individual differences in cognitive style.
ABSTRACT
In laboratory and applied learning experiments, researchers have extensively investigated the optimal distribution of two learning sessions (i.e., initial learning and one relearning session) for the learning of verbatim materials. However, research has not yet provided a satisfying and conclusive answer to the optimal scheduling of three learning sessions (i.e., initial learning and two relearning sessions) across educationally relevant time intervals. Should the to-be-learned material be repeated at decreasing intervals (contracting schedule), constant intervals (equal schedule), or increasing intervals (expanding schedule) between learning sessions? Different theories and memory models (e.g., study-phase retrieval theory, contextual variability theory, ACT-R, and the Multiscale Context Model) make distinct predictions about the optimal learning schedule. We discuss the extant theories and derive clear predictions from each of them. To test these predictions empirically, we conducted an experiment in which participants studied and restudied paired associates with a contracting, equal, or expanding learning schedule. Memory performance was assessed immediately, 1 day, 7 days, or 35 days later with free- and cued-recall tests. Our results revealed that the optimal learning schedule is conditional on the length of the retention interval: A contracting learning schedule was beneficial for retention intervals up to 7 days, but both equal and expanding learning schedules were better for a long retention interval of 35 days. Our findings can be accommodated best by the contextual variability theory and indicate that revisions are needed to existing memory models. Our results are practically relevant, and their implications for real-world learning are discussed.
