bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Accountability and adaptive performance under uncertainty: A long-term view
Authors: Chang Welton , Atanasov Pavel , Patil Shefali , Mellers Barbara A. , Tetlock Philip E. 
Published: January 2023

AbstractAccountability pressures are a ubiquitous feature of social systems: virtually everyone must answer to someone for something. Behavioral research has, however, warned that accountability, specifically a focus on being responsible for outcomes, tends to produce suboptimal judgments. We qualify this view by demonstrating the long-term adaptive benefits of outcome accountability in uncertain, dynamic environments. More than a thousand randomly assigned forecasters participated in a ten-month forecasting tournament in conditions of control, process, outcome or hybrid accountability. Accountable forecasters outperformed non-accountable ones. Holding forecasters accountable to outcomes (“getting it right”) boosted forecasting accuracy beyond holding them accountable for process (“thinking the right way”). The performance gap grew over time. Process accountability promoted more effective knowledge sharing, improving accuracy among observers. Hybrid (process plus outcome) accountability boosted accuracy relative to process, and improved knowledge sharing relative to outcome accountability. Overall, outcome and process accountability appear to make complementary contributions to performance when forecasters confront moderately noisy, dynamic environments where signal extraction requires both knowledge pooling and individual judgments.
The price of gaining: maximization in decision-making, regret and life satisfaction
Authors: Moyano-Díaz Emilio , Martínez-Molina Agustín , Ponce Fernando P. 
Published: January 2023

AbstractMaximizers attempt to find the best solution in decision-making, while satisficers feel comfortable with a good enough solution. Recent results pointed out some critical aspects of this decision-making approach and some concerns about its measurement and dimensional structure. In addition to the analysis of these aspects, we tested the possible mediational role of regret in this psychological process. The Maximization Inventory (MI; satisficing, decision difficulty, and alternative search), regret, and Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) were translated and adapted to Spanish in order to answer these issues with a Chilean sample. Validity and reliability analysis of the MI reports that only two dimensions of the MI have enough dimensional support (decision difficulty, alternative search). The tested structural model shows good fit of partial mediation effect of regret between decision difficulty and SWLS. At the same time, alternative search has a positive relation with SWLS. These results suggest that Regret becomes crucial for prescribing behavior to decision makers.
Validation and invariance across age and gender for the Melbourne Decision-Making Questionnaire in a sample of Portuguese adults
Authors: Filipe Luís , Alvarez Maria-João , Roberto Magda Sofia , Ferreira Joaquim A. 
Published: January 2023

AbstractThe personal pattern of coping with the stress associated with making decisions characterizes the way an individual makes choices and judgments. The Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire (MDMQ) analyses these personal patterns and has been used across various cultures in order to assess four main strategies: vigilance, buck-passing, procrastination, and hypervigilance. We sought to adapt and validate a Portuguese version of the MDMQ. Our study was conducted with a sample of 523 Portuguese people aged 18 or older. The questionnaire retained the original four scales, which represent four different decisional patterns, showing good reliability and validity – concurrent as well as predictive – and invariance for gender and age. The coping pattern with the highest mean was vigilance, while procrastination had the lowest mean. In contrast to other studies of the MDMQ, our sample had a more diversified distribution of age. Young adults were less capable than older adults of managing stress when making decisions, due to their higher levels of buck-passing, hypervigilance, and procrastination. Vigilance showed stronger correlations to positive affect, satisfaction with life, and better decisional self-esteem, while the remaining scales were related to negative affect, reduced decisional self-esteem, and lower satisfaction with life. These decision-making styles are chosen depending on time constraints, pressure, or other contextual characteristics. These results suggest that individuals resort to more convenient patterns according to their situation, and that these patterns of decision-making can be trained, developed, and improved.
Does telling white lies signal pro-social preferences?
Authors: Biziou-van-Pol Laura , Haenen Jana , Novaro Arianna , Occhipinti Liberman Andrés , Capraro Valerio 
Published: January 2023

AbstractThe opportunity to tell a white lie (i.e., a lie that benefits another person) generates a moral conflict between two opposite moral dictates, one pushing towards telling the truth always and the other pushing towards helping others. Here we study how people resolve this moral conflict. What does telling a white lie signal about a person’s pro-social tendencies? To answer this question, we conducted a two-stage 2x2 experiment. In the first stage, we used a Deception Game to measure aversion to telling a Pareto white lie (i.e., a lie that helps both the liar and the listener), and aversion to telling an altruistic white lie (i.e., a lie that helps the listener at the expense of the liar). In the second stage we measured altruistic tendencies using a Dictator Game and cooperative tendencies using a Prisoner’s dilemma. We found three major results: (i) both altruism and cooperation are positively correlated with aversion to telling a Pareto white lie; (ii) both altruism and cooperation are negatively correlated with aversion to telling an altruistic white lie; (iii) men are more likely than women to tell an altruistic white lie, but not to tell a Pareto white lie. Our results shed light on the moral conflict between prosociality and truth-telling. In particular, the first finding suggests that a significant proportion of people have non-distributional notions of what the right thing to do is, irrespective of the economic consequences, they tell the truth, they cooperate, they share their money.
Strategies using recent feedback lead to matching or maximising behaviours
Authors: Cheng Zhenbo , Gao Jingying , Zhang Leilei , Xiao Gang , Mao Hongjing 
Published: January 2023

AbstractOne challenge facing humans (and nonhuman animal) is that some options that appear attractive locally may not turn out best in the long run. To analyse this human learning problem, we explore human performance in a dynamic decision-making task that places local and global rewards in conflict. We found that experiences that included previous choices and rewards are not easily incorporated into people’s strategy to enhance their performance. Our results suggest that humans are easily driven by concerns about recent feedback, and that choice of a suboptimal behaviour option may be overcome by providing informative cues that indicate a clear immediate outcome for a better option.
Crowding-out (-in) Effects of Subsidy Schemes on Individual Donations: An Experimental Study
Authors: Peng Hui-Chun , Liu Wen-Jing 
Published: January 2023

AbstractWe conduct a laboratory experiment to investigate whether the rebate and matching subsidy schemes cause crowding-out or crowding-in effects (reductions or increases in amount donated) on individual net donations. We find that when the rebate subsidy scheme is implemented, it does not result in crowding-out or crowding-in effects on individual net donations. However, when the matching subsidy scheme is implemented, it encourages individuals to donate more and generates crowding-in effects on individual net donations.
Resistance to medical artificial intelligence is an attribute in a compensatory decision process: response to Pezzo and Beckstead (2020)
Authors: Longoni Chiara , Bonezzi Andrea , Morewedge Carey K. 
Published: January 2023

AbstractIn Longoni et al. (2019), we examine how algorithm aversion influences utilization of healthcare delivered by human and artificial intelligence providers. Pezzo and Beckstead’s (2020) commentary asks whether resistance to medical AI takes the form of a noncompensatory decision strategy, in which a single attribute determines provider choice, or whether resistance to medical AI is one of several attributes considered in a compensatory decision strategy. We clarify that our paper both claims and finds that, all else equal, resistance to medical AI is one of several attributes (e.g., cost and performance) influencing healthcare utilization decisions. In other words, resistance to medical AI is a consequential input to compensatory decisions regarding healthcare utilization and provider choice decisions, not a noncompensatory decision strategy. People do not always reject healthcare provided by AI, and our article makes no claim that they do.
Gender differences in the trade-off between objective equality and efficiency
Authors: Capraro Valerio 
Published: January 2023

AbstractGenerations of social scientists have explored whether males and females act differently in domains involving competition, risk taking, cooperation, altruism, honesty, as well as many others. Yet, little is known about gender differences in the trade-off between objective equality (i.e., equality of outcomes) and efficiency. It has been suggested that females are more equal than males, but the empirical evidence is relatively weak. This gap is particularly important, because people in power of redistributing resources often face a conflict between equality and efficiency. The recently introduced Trade-Off Game (TOG) – in which a decision-maker has to unilaterally choose between being equal or being efficient – offers a unique opportunity to fill this gap. To this end, I analyse gender differences on a large dataset including N=6,955 TOG decisions. The results show that females prefer objective equality over efficiency to a greater extent than males do. The effect turns out to be particularly strong when the TOG available options are “morally” framed in such a way to suggest that choosing the equal option is the right thing to do.
Prompting deliberation increases base-rate use
Authors: Obrecht Natalie A. , Chesney Dana L. 
Published: January 2023

AbstractPeople often base judgments on stereotypes, even when contradictory base-rate information is provided. In a sample of 438 students from two state universities, we tested several hypotheses regarding why people would prefer stereotype information over base-rates when making judgments: A) People believe stereotype information is more diagnostic than base-rate information, B) people find stereotype information more salient than base-rate information, or C) even though people have some intuitive access to base-rate information, they may need to engage in deliberation before they can make full use of it, and often fail to do so. In line with the deliberative failure account, and counter to the diagnosticity account, we found that inducing deliberation by having people evaluate statements supporting the use of base-rates increased the use of base-rate information. Moreover, counter to the salience and diagnosticity accounts, asking people to evaluate statements supporting the use of stereotypes decreased reliance on stereotype information. Additionally, more numerate subjects were more likely to make use of base-rate information.
Overlap of accessible information undermines the anchoring effect
Authors: Bahník Štěpán , Strack Fritz 
Published: January 2023

AbstractAccording to the Selective Accessibility Model of anchoring, the comparison question in the standard anchoring paradigm activates information that is congruent with an anchor. As a consequence, this information will be more likely to become the basis for the absolute judgment which will therefore be assimilated toward the anchor. However, if the activated information overlaps with information that is elicited by the absolute judgment itself, the preceding comparative judgment should not exert an incremental effect and should fail to result in an anchoring effect. The present studies find this result when the comparative judgment refers to a general category and the absolute judgment refers to a subset of the general category that was activated by the anchor value. For example, participants comparing the average annual temperature in New York City to a high 102 °F judged the average winter, but not summer temperature to be higher than participants making no comparison. On the other hand, participants comparing the annual temperature to a low –4 °F judged the average summer, but not winter temperature to be lower than control participants. This pattern of results was shown also in another content domain. It is consistent with the Selective Accessibility Model but difficult to reconcile with other main explanations of the anchoring effect.
Psychometric characteristics of two forms of the Slovak version of the Indecisiveness Scale
Authors: Bavolar Jozef 
Published: January 2023

AbstractThe study investigates the psychometric characteristics of the Slovak version of the original and short form of the Indecisiveness Scale on three samples of university students and one general population sample. An exploratory as well as confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the one factor structure of the scale with a satisfactory internal consistency and time stability of scores. The criterion validity was examined through relationships with thinking styles, decision-making styles, the Big Five factors, decision outcomes, well-being and perceived stress, as well as through a comparison of the general population sample with a sample with an obsessive-compulsive disorder diagnosis. Subjects who self-reported as undecided in their future intentions regarding migration tendencies had higher scores in indecisiveness. Both examined forms of the Slovak version of the Indecisiveness Scale were demonstrated to be reliable and valid instruments for the measurement of indecisiveness with the short form being favorited as more appropriately tapping into the core aspect of indecisiveness.
Still no compelling evidence that Americans overestimate upward socio-economic mobility rates: Reply to Davidai & Gilovich (2018)
Authors: Nero Sondre S. , Swan Lawton K. , Chambers John R. , Heesacker Martin 
Published: January 2023

AbstractDavidai and Gilovich (2018) contend that (a) Americans tend to think about their nation’s income distribution in terms of quintiles (fifths), and (b) when Americans’ perceptions of socio-economic mobility rates are measured properly (e.g., by asking online survey respondents to guess upward-mobility rates across quintiles), a trend of overestimation (too much optimism concerning the number of people who manage to transcend poverty) will emerge. In this reply, we hail Davidai and Gilovich’s new data as novel, important, and relevant to the former (a), but we doubt that they can support the latter (b) claim about population-level (in)accuracy. Namely, we note that even if mobility-rate perceptions could be measured perfectly, inferences about the accuracy of those perceptions still depend on aparticularcomparator—a point-estimate of the "true" rate of upward social mobility in the U.S. against which survey respondents’ guesses are evaluated—that isitselfan error-prone estimate. Applying different established comparators to survey respondents’ guesses changes both the direction and magnitude of previously observed overestimation effects. We conclude with a challenge: researchers who wish to compute the average distance between socio-economic perceptions and socio-economic reality must first select and justify a fair comparator.
The delay-reward heuristic: What do people expect in intertemporal choice tasks?
Authors: Skylark William J. , Chan Kieran T. F. , Farmer George D. , Gaskin Kai W. , Miller Amelia R. 
Published: January 2023

AbstractRecent research has shown that risk and reward are positively correlated in many environments, and that people have internalized this association as a “risk-reward heuristic”: when making choices based on incomplete information, people infer probabilities from payoffs and vice-versa, and these inferences shape their decisions. We extend this work by examining people’s expectations about another fundamental trade-off — that between monetary reward and delay. In 2 experiments (total N = 670), we adapted a paradigm previously used to demonstrate the risk-reward heuristic. We presented participants with intertemporal choice tasks in which either the delayed reward or the length of the delay was obscured. Participants inferred larger rewards for longer stated delays, and longer delays for larger stated rewards; these inferences also predicted people’s willingness to take the delayed option. In exploratory analyses, we found that older participants inferred longer delays and smaller rewards than did younger ones. All of these results replicated in 2 large-scale pre-registered studies with participants from a different population (total N = 2138). Our results suggest that people expect intertemporal choice tasks to offer a trade-off between delay and reward, and differ in their expectations about this trade-off. This “delay-reward heuristic” offers a new perspective on existing models of intertemporal choice and provides new insights into unexplained and systematic individual differences in the willingness to delay gratification.
Asymmetry and symmetry of acts and omissions in punishment, norms, and judged causality
Authors: Handfield Toby , Thrasher John , Corcoran Andrew , Nichols Shaun 
Published: January 2023

AbstractHarmful acts are punished more often and more harshly than harmful omissions. This asymmetry has variously been ascribed to differences in how individuals perceive the causal responsibility of acts versus omissions and to social norms that tend to proscribe acts more frequently than omissions. This paper examines both of these hypotheses, in conjunction with a new hypothesis: that acts are punished more than omissions because it is usually more efficient to do so. In typical settings, harms occur as a result of relatively few harmful actions, but many individuals may have had the opportunity to prevent or rectify the harm. Penalising actors therefore requires relatively few punishment events compared to punishing omitters. We employ a novel group paradigm in which harm occurs only if both actors and omitters contribute to the harm. Subjects play a repeated economic game in fixed groups involving a social dilemma (total N = 580): on each round self-interest favours harmful actions (taking from another) and harmful omissions (failing to repair the victim’s loss), but the group payoff is maximized if individuals refrain from these behaviors. In one treatment harm occurs as a result of one action and two omissions; in the other, it is the result of two actions and one omission. In the second treatment, the more efficient strategy to maximize group benefit is to punish omissions. We find that subjects continue to prefer to punish acts rather than omissions, with two important caveats. There is still a substantial level of punishment of omissions, and there is also evidence of some responsiveness to the opportunity to enforce a more efficient rule. Further analysis addresses whether the omission effect is associated with asymmetric norm-based attitudes: a substantial proportion of subjects regard it as equally fair to punish harmful acts and omissions, while another portion endorse an asymmetry; and punishment behavior correlates with these attitudes in both groups.
A hierarchy of mindreading strategies in joint action participation
Authors: Landes Todd Larson , Howe Piers Douglas , Kashima Yoshihisa 
Published: January 2023

AbstractThis paper introduces the Hierarchical Mindreading Model (HMM), a new model of mindreading in two-person, mixed-motive games such as the Prisoners’ Dilemma. The HMM proposes that the strategies available to decision makers in these games can be classified on a hierarchy according to the type of mindreading involved. At Level 0 of the HMM, there is no attempt to infer the intentions of the other player from any of the context-specific information (i.e., signals, payoffs, or partner reliability). At Level 1, decision makers rely on signals to infer the other’s intention, without considering the possibility that those signals might not reflect the other’s true intention. Finally, in Level 2 strategies, decision makers infer the other player’s intended choice by integrating information contained in their signals with the apparent reliability of the other participant and/or the game’s payoffs. The implications of the HMM were tested across four studies involving 962 participants, with results consistently indicating the presence of strategies from all three levels of the HMM’s hierarchy.
Visual attention and time preference reversals
Authors: Zhou Yan-Bang , Li Qiang , Liu Hong-Zhi 
Published: January 2023

AbstractTime preference reversal refers to systematic inconsistencies between preferences and bids for intertemporal options. From the two eye-tracking studies (N1 = 60, N2 = 110), we examined the underlying mechanisms of time preference reversal. We replicated the reversal effect in which individuals facing a pair of intertemporal options choose the smaller-sooner option but assign a higher value to the larger-later one. Results revealed that the mean fixation duration and the proportion of gaze time on the outcome attribute varied across the choice and bid tasks. In addition, time preference reversals correlated with individual differences in maximizing tendencies. Findings support the contingent weighting hypothesis and strategy compatibility hypothesis and allow for improved theoretical understanding of the potential mechanisms and processes involved in time preference reversals.
Without a mask: Judgments of Corona virus exposure as a function of inter personal distance
Authors: Svenson Ola , Appelbom Sophia , Mayorga Marcus , Lindholm Öjmyr Torun 
Published: January 2023

AbstractIn order to minimize the risk of infection during the Covid-19 pandemic, people are recommended to keep interpersonal distance (e.g., 1 m, 2 m, 6 feet), wash their hands frequently, limit social contacts and sometimes to wear a face mask. We investigated how people judge the protective effect of interpersonal distance against the Corona virus. The REM model, based on earlier empirical studies, describes how a person’s virus exposure decreases with the square of the distance to another person emitting a virus in a face to face situation. In a comparison with model predictions, most participants underestimated the protective effect of moving further away from another person. Correspondingly, most participants were not aware of how much their exposure would increase if they moved closer to the other person. Spectral analysis of judgments showed that a linear ratio model with the independent variable = (initial distance)/(distance to which a person moves) was the most frequently used judgment rule. It leads to insensitivity to change in exposure compared with the REM model. The present study indicated a need for information about the effects of keeping interpersonal distance and about the importance of virus carrying aerosols in environments with insufficient air ventilation. Longer conversations emitting aerosols in a closed environment may lead to ambient concentrations of aerosols in the air that no distance can compensate for. The results of the study are important for risk communications in countries where people do not wear a mask and when authorities consider removal of a recommendation or a requirement to wear a face mask.