Is Conviction Narrative Theory a theory of everything or nothing?

We connect Conviction Narrative Theory to an account that views people as intuitive scientists who can flexibly create, evaluate, and modify representations of decision problems. We argue that without understanding how the relevant complex narratives (or indeed any representation, simple to complex) are themselves constructed, we also cannot know when and why people would rely on them to make choices.

Toward nonprobabilistic explanations of learning and decision-making.

Referring to probabilistic concepts (such as randomness, sampling, and probability distributions among others) is commonplace in contemporary explanations of how people learn and make decisions in the face of environmental unknowns. Here, we critically evaluate this practice and argue that such concepts should only play a relatively minor part in psychological explanations. To make this point, we provide a theoretical analysis of what people need to do in order to deal with unknown aspects of a typical decision-making task (a repeated-choice gamble). This analysis reveals that the use of probabilistic concepts in psychological explanations may and often does conceal essential, nonprobabilistic steps that people need to take to attempt to solve the problems that environmental unknowns present. To give these steps a central role, we recast how people solve these problems as a type of hypothesis generation and evaluation, of which using probabilistic concepts to deal with unknowns is one of many possibilities. We also demonstrate some immediate practical consequences of our proposed approach in two experiments. This perspective implies a shift in focus toward nonprobabilistic aspects of psychological explanations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Observing effects in various contexts won't give us general psychological theories.

Generalization does not come from repeatedly observing phenomena in numerous settings, but from theories explaining what is general in those phenomena. Expecting future behavior to look like past observations is especially problematic in psychology, where behaviors change when people's knowledge changes. Psychology should thus focus on theories of people's capacity to create and apply new representations of their environments.

Arrested Theory Development: The Misguided Distinction Between Exploratory and Confirmatory Research.

Science progresses by finding and correcting problems in theories. Good theories are those that help facilitate this process by being hard to vary: They explain what they are supposed to explain, they are consistent with other good theories, and they are not easily adaptable to explain anything. Here we argue that, rather than a lack of distinction between exploratory and confirmatory research, an abundance of flexible theories is a better explanation for the current replicability problems of psychology. We also explain why popular methods-oriented solutions fail to address the real problem of flexibility. Instead, we propose that a greater emphasis on theory criticism by argument might improve replicability.

People as Intuitive Scientists: Reconsidering Statistical Explanations of Decision Making.

A persistent metaphor in decision-making research casts people as intuitive statisticians. Popular explanations based on this metaphor assume that the way in which people represent the environment is specified and fixed a priori. A major flaw in this account is that it is not clear how people know what aspects of an environment are important, how to interpret those aspects, and how to make decisions based on them. We suggest a theoretical reorientation away from assuming people's representations towards a focus on explaining how people themselves specify what is important to represent. This perspective casts decision makers as intuitive scientists able to flexibly construct, modify, and replace the representations of the decision problems they face.

What is the purpose of cognition?

The purpose of human cognition depends on the problem people try to solve. Defining the purpose is difficult, because people seem capable of representing problems in an infinite number of ways. The way in which the function of cognition develops needs to be central to our theories.

Simultaneous underweighting and overestimation of rare events: Unpacking a paradox.

We investigated previous findings suggesting a paradoxical inconsistency of people's beliefs and choices: When making decisions under uncertainty, people seem to both overestimate the probability of rare events in their judgments and underweight the probability of the same rare events in their choices. In our reexamination, we found that people's beliefs are consistent with their decisions, but they do not necessarily correspond with the environment. Both overestimation and underweighting of the rare event seemed to result from (most, but not all) participants' mistaken belief that they can infer and exploit sequential patterns in a static environment. In addition, we found that such inaccurate representations can be improved through incentives. Finally, detailed analysis suggested a mixture of individual-level response patterns, which can give rise to an erroneous interpretation of group-level patterns. Our results offer an explanation for why beliefs and decisions can appear contradictory and present challenges to some current models of decisions under uncertainty. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Is action execution part of the decision-making process? An investigation of the embodied choice hypothesis.

In this study, we aimed to explore whether action execution is an inherent part of the decision-making process. According to the hypothesis of embodied choice, the decision-making process is bidirectional as action dynamics exert their backward influence on decision processes through changing the cost and value of the potential options. This influence takes place as moving toward one option increases the commitment to and, therefore, the likelihood of choosing that option. This commitment effect can be the result of either (a) the continuous act of getting closer to this option or (b) the increased movement cost associated with changing the movement direction to select a different option. To disentangle the potential influence of these two factors, we developed the Guided Movement Task, a choice task designed to bias participant's computer-mouse movements by constraining the allowed movement space by a corridor. Using this task, we created different conditions in which the participants' mouse cursor, after being guided toward one of the options, either had equal or unequal distances to the choice options. By this manipulation, we could test whether the continuous act of getting closer to an option in itself is sufficient to influence people's decisions-a claim of "strong embodiment." In two experiments, we found that the likelihood of choosing an option only increased when the distances between the two options were unequal after the initial movement but not when they were equal. These results disagree with the hypothesis that action execution is an inherent part of the decision-making process. (PsycINFO Database Record

Exploring the determinants of confidence in the bat-and-ball problem.

People often fail to solve deceptively simple mathematical problems, a tendency popularly demonstrated by the bat-and-ball problem. The most prominent explanation of this finding is that, to spare cognitive effort, people substitute the difficult task with an easier one, without being aware of the substitution. Despite this latter assumption, recent studies have found decreased levels of post-decision confidence ratings when people gave the answer of an easier calculation, suggesting that people are sensitive to their errors. In the current study, we investigated a mechanism that might be responsible for such a decrease in people's confidence ratings when they make errors: their attempts to make certain that their answer is correct (verification) and the perceived level of task difficulty (verifiability). We found that these two factors predicted people's confidence, suggesting that people's self-assessment of the perceived task difficulty and of their attempt to verify their response might determine their confidence. Implication for current models of post-decision confidence on reasoning problems is discussed.

Measuring Individual Differences in Decision Biases: Methodological Considerations.

Individual differences in people's susceptibility to heuristics and biases (HB) are often measured by multiple-bias questionnaires consisting of one or a few items for each bias. This research approach relies on the assumptions that (1) different versions of a decision bias task measure are interchangeable as they measure the same cognitive failure; and (2) that some combination of these tasks measures the same underlying construct. Based on these assumptions, in Study 1 we developed two versions of a new decision bias survey for which we modified 13 HB tasks to increase their comparability, construct validity, and the participants' motivation. The analysis of the responses (N = 1279) showed weak internal consistency within the surveys and a great level of discrepancy between the extracted patterns of the underlying factors. To explore these inconsistencies, in Study 2 we used three original examples of HB tasks for each of seven biases. We created three decision bias surveys by allocating one version of each HB task to each survey. The participants' responses (N = 527) showed a similar pattern as in Study 1, questioning the assumption that the different examples of the HB tasks are interchangeable and that they measure the same underlying construct. These results emphasize the need to understand the domain-specificity of cognitive biases as well as the effect of the wording of the cover story and the response mode on bias susceptibility before employing them in multiple-bias questionnaires.

Is it time for studying real-life debiasing? Evaluation of the effectiveness of an analogical intervention technique.

The aim of this study was to initiate the exploration of debiasing methods applicable in real-life settings for achieving lasting improvement in decision making competence regarding multiple decision biases. Here, we tested the potentials of the analogical encoding method for decision debiasing. The advantage of this method is that it can foster the transfer from learning abstract principles to improving behavioral performance. For the purpose of the study, we devised an analogical debiasing technique for 10 biases (covariation detection, insensitivity to sample size, base rate neglect, regression to the mean, outcome bias, sunk cost fallacy, framing effect, anchoring bias, overconfidence bias, planning fallacy) and assessed the susceptibility of the participants (N = 154) to these biases before and 4 weeks after the training. We also compared the effect of the analogical training to the effect of 'awareness training' and a 'no-training' control group. Results suggested improved performance of the analogical training group only on tasks where the violations of statistical principles are measured. The interpretation of these findings require further investigation, yet it is possible that analogical training may be the most effective in the case of learning abstract concepts, such as statistical principles, which are otherwise difficult to master. The study encourages a systematic research of debiasing trainings and the development of intervention assessment methods to measure the endurance of behavior change in decision debiasing.

An empirical analysis of the methodology of automatic imitation research in a strategic context.

Since the discovery of the mirror neuron system, it has been proposed that the automatic tendency to copy observed actions exists in humans and that this mechanism might be responsible for a range of social behavior. A strong argument for automatic behavior can be made when actions are executed against motivation to do otherwise. Strategic games in which imitation is disadvantageous serve as ideal designs for studying the automatic nature of participants' behavior. Most recently, Belot, Crawford, and Heyes (2013) conducted an explorative study using a modified version of the Rock-Paper-Scissors game, and suggested that in the case of asynchrony in the execution of the gestures, automatic imitation can be observed early on after the opponent's presentation. In our study, we video recorded the games, which allowed us to examine the effect of delay on imitative behavior as well as the sensitivity of the previously employed analyses. The examination of the recorded images revealed that more than 80% of the data were irrelevant to the study of automatic behavior. Additional bias in the paradigm became apparent, as previously presented gestures were found to affect the behavior of the players. After noise filtering, we found no evidence of automatic imitation in either the whole filtered data set or in selected time windows based on delay length. Besides questioning the strength of the results of previous analyses, we propose several experimental and statistical modifications for further research on automatic imitation.