bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
What lies beneath? Fear vs. disgust as affective predictors of absolutist opposition to genetically modified food and other new technologies
Authors: Royzman Edward , Cusimano Corey , Leeman Robert F. 
Published: January 2023

AbstractIn line with earlier research, a multi-phase study found a significant positive association between a widely used measure of trait disgust and people’s tendency to favor absolutist (non-consequentialist) restrictions on genetically modified food (GMF). However, a more nuanced high-granularity approach showed that it was individual sensitivity to fear (specifically, a tendency to feelcreeped outby strange and subtly deviant events) rather than a tendency to bedisgusted(orally inhibited) by these events that was a unique predictor of absolutist opposition to GMF and other types of new technology. This finding is consistent with prior theorizing and research demonstrating fear to be “the major determiner of public perception and acceptance of risk for a wide range of hazards” related to new technology (e.g., nuclear power) (Slovic & Peters, 2006, p. 322). The present study calls attention to the importance of conducting future assessments ofdisgust(and other affective constructs) in a manner that, among other things, recognizes the substantial disconnect between theoretical and lay meanings of the term and illustrates how a policy-guiding result may arise from a sheer miscommunication between a researcher and a subject.
Measuring the relative contributions of rule-based and exemplar-based processes in judgment: Validation of a simple model
Authors: Bröder Arndt , Gräf Michael , Kieslich Pascal J. 
Published: January 2023

AbstractJudgments and decisions can rely on rules to integrate cue information or on the retrieval of similar exemplars from memory. Research on exemplar-based processes in judgment has discovered several task variables influencing the dominant mode of processing. This research often aggregates data across participants or classifies them as using either exemplar-based or cue-based processing. It has been argued for theoretical and empirical reasons that both kinds of processes might operate together or in parallel. Hence, a classification of strategies may be a severe oversimplification that also sacrifices statistical power to detect task effects. We present a simple measurement tool combining both processing modes. The simple model contains a mixture parameter quantifying the relative contribution of both kinds of processes in a judgment and decision task. In three experiments, we validate the measurement model by demonstrating that instructions and task variables affect the mixture parameter in predictable ways, both in memory-based and screen-based judgments.
Vulnerable maximizers: The role of decision difficulty
Authors: Kim Kaeun , Miller Elizabeth G. 
Published: January 2023

AbstractAdding to prior literature that has examined the relationship between maximization and dissatisfaction, the present research suggests that maximizers, as defined by the original maximization scale, are unhappier decision makers than satisficers because maximizers fail to adequately handle dissonant experiences. Throughout three studies that use different conceptualization and measurement of maximization, we show that maximizers are more vulnerable to negative feedback about one’s choice such that they decrease positivity toward the chosen option to a greater level than satisficers. However, this effect was mainly driven by the decision difficulty factor in the conceptualization of maximization. When decision difficulty was conceptualized as a defining component of maximization (Study 1 and 2), “maximizers” show greater positivity drop in the face of negative feedback. However, in the absence of a decision difficulty component, a recently proposed two-component model of maximization (the goal to get the best and search for alternatives; Cheek & Schwartz, 2016) did not play a significant role in predicting positivity drop, while perceived decision difficulty did (Study 3). Together our findings suggest that previously reported contradictory outcomes of maximization may be due to inconsistent conceptualization and measurement, especially treating decision difficulty as a defining component of maximization.
Measurement is the core disgust problem: Response to Inbar and Scott (2018)
Authors: Cusimano Corey , Royzman Edward B. , Leeman Robert F. , Metas Stephen 
Published: January 2023

AbstractScott, Inbar and Rozin (2016) presented evidence that trait disgust predicts opposition to genetically modified food (GMF). Royzman, Cusimano, and Leeman (2017) argued that these authors did not appropriately measure trait disgust (disgust quaoral inhibitionorOI) and that, once appropriately measured, the hypothesized association between disgust and GMF attitudes was not present. In their commentary, Inbar and Scott (2018) challenge our conclusions in several ways. In this response, we defend our conclusions by showing (a) that OI is psychometrically distinct from other affective categories, (b) that OI is widely held to be the criterial feature of disgust and (c) that we were well-justified to pair OI with the pathogen-linked vignettes that we used. Furthermore, we extend our critique to the new findings presented by Inbar and Scott (2018); we show that worry and suspicion (not disgust) are the dominant affective states one is likely to experience while thinking about GMF and that the true prevalence of disgust is about zero. We conclude by underscoring that the present argument and findings are a part of a larger body of evidence challenging any causal effect of disgust on morality.
Justifying the judgment process affects neither judgment accuracy, nor strategy use
Authors: Hoffmann Janina A. , Gaissmaier Wolfgang , von Helversen Bettina 
Published: January 2023

AbstractDecision quality is often evaluated based on whether decision makers can adequately explain the decision process. Accountability often improves judgment quality because decision makers weigh and integrate information more thoroughly, but it could also hurt judgment processes by disrupting retrieval of previously encountered cases. We investigated to what degree process accountability motivates decision makers to shift from retrieval of past exemplars to rule-based integration processes. This shift may hinder accurate judgments in retrieval-based configural judgment tasks (Experiment 1) but may improve accuracy in elemental judgment tasks requiring weighing and integrating information (Experiment 2). In randomly selected trials, participants had to justify their judgments. Process accountability neither changed how accurately people made a judgment, nor the judgment strategies. Justifying the judgment process only decreased confidence in trials involving a justification. Overall, these results imply that process accountability may affect judgment quality less than expected.
Taking the sting out of choice: Diversification of investments
Authors: Avrahami Judith , Kareev Yaakov , Hart Einav 
Published: January 2023

AbstractIt is often the case that one can choose a mix of alternative options rather than have to select one option only. Such an opportunity to diversify may blunt the risk involved in all-or-none choice. Here we investigate repeated investment decisions in two-valued options that differ in their riskiness, looking for the effects of recent decisions and their outcomes on upcoming decisions. We compare these effects to those evident in all-or-none choice between the same risky options. The “state of the world”, namely, the likelihood of the high versus the low outcomes of the options, is manipulated. We find that aggregate allocation diverges from uniformity (i.e., from 1/n), and is sensitive to outcome probabilities, with the pattern of results indicating reactivity to the outcome of the previous decision. Round-to-round dynamics reveal that the outcome of the previous decision has an effect on the subsequent decision, on top of inertia; the aspects of the outcome that influence the next decision indicate an effect of a missed opportunity, if there was one, in the previous decision. Importantly, recent outcomes have a similar effect in diversification decisions and in all-or-none choice.
Framing effect in evaluation of others’ predictions
Authors: Yeung Saiwing 
Published: January 2023

AbstractThis paper explored how frames influence people’s evaluation of others’ probabilistic predictions in light of the outcomes of binary events. Most probabilistic predictions (e.g., “there is a 75% chance that Denver will win the Super Bowl”) can be partitioned into two components: A qualitative component that describes the predicted outcome (“Denver will win the Super Bowl”), and a quantitative component that represents the chance of the outcome occurring (“75% chance”). Various logically equivalent variations of a single prediction can be created through different combinations of these components and their logical or numerical complements (e.g., “25% chance that Denver will lose the Super Bowl”, “75% chance that Seattle will lose the Super Bowl”). Based on the outcome of the predicted event, these logically equivalent predictions can be categorized into two classes: Congruently framed predictions, in which the qualitative component matches the outcome, and incongruently framed predictions, in which it does not. Although the two classes of predictions are logically equivalent, we hypothesize that people would judge congruently framed predictions to be more accurate. The paper tested this hypothesis in seven experiments and found supporting evidence across a number of domains and experimental manipulations, and even when the congruently framed prediction was logically inferior. It also found that this effect held even for subjects who saw both congruently framed and incongruently framed versions of a prediction and judged the two to be logically equivalent.
Subjective integration of probabilistic information from experience and description
Authors: Shlomi Yaron 
Published: January 2023

AbstractI report a new judgment task designed to investigate the subjective weights allotted to experience and description when integrating information from the two sources. Subjects estimated the percentage of red balls in a bag containing red and blue balls based on two samples from the bag. They experienced one sample by observing a sequence of draws and received a description of the other sample in terms of summary statistics.The results of two experiments show that judgments were more sensitive to the experienced sample compared to the described one for most subjects, although others showed the opposite bias. The bias toward experience varied as a function of the presentation order of the two samples in Experiment 1 and the presentation format of the description in Experiment 2.The integration of description and experience exemplifies tasks that require integration of information obtained from different sources and in different formats. Informed by the findings reported in this study, I identify some directions for future research on human information integration.
What does it mean to maximize? “Decision difficulty,” indecisiveness, and the jingle-jangle fallacies in the measurement of maximizing
Authors: Cheek Nathan N. , Goebel Jacob 
Published: January 2023

AbstractFor two decades, researchers have investigated the correlates and consequences of individual differences inmaximizing, the tendency to pursue the goal of making the best possible choice by extensively seeking out and comparing alternatives. In this time, many different conceptualizations of maximizing have been proposed, including several that incorporate a construct called “decision difficulty.” We propose that including decision difficulty in measures of maximizing is problematic because the tendency to experience difficulty when making decisions is a separate individual difference construct already studied independently of maximizing — namely,indecisiveness. Across two studies (totalN= 639), we find that scales measuring decision difficulty and indecisiveness are strongly correlated (r’s ≥ .85), load on the same component in a principal component analysis, and show a very similar pattern of correlations with related variables. Moreover, decision difficulty and indecisiveness scales both show a divergent pattern of correlations when compared to measures of maximizing. We argue that decision difficulty scales are best interpreted as tapping the same underlying tendency as indecisiveness scales, and conclude that the tendency to experience difficulty in decision making is best conceptualized not as a component of maximizing, but rather a cause or consequence of it.
The false allure of fast lures
Authors: Attali Yigal , Bar-Hillel Maya 
Published: January 2023

AbstractThe Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) allegedly measures the tendency to override the prepotent incorrect answers to some special problems, and to engage in further reflection. A growing literature suggests that the CRT is a powerful predictor of performance in a wide range of tasks. This research has mostly glossed over the fact that the CRT is composed of math problems. The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether numerical CRT items do indeed call upon more than is required by standard math problems, and whether the latter predict performance in other tasks as well as the CRT. In Study 1 we selected from a bank of standard math problems items that, like CRT items, have a fast lure, as well as others which do not. A 1-factor model was the best supported measurement model for the underlying abilities required by all three item types. Moreover, the quality of all these items – CRT and math problems alike – as predictors of performance on a set of choice and reasoning tasks did not depend on whether or not they had a fast lure, but rather only on their quality as math items. In other words, CRT items seem not to be a “special” category of math problems, although they are quite excellent ones. Study 2 replicated these results with a different population and a different set of math problems.
On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit
Authors: Pennycook Gordon , Allan Cheyne James , Barr Nathaniel , Koehler Derek J. , Fugelsang Jonathan A. 
Published: January 2023

AbstractAlthough bullshit is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (critical or ingenuous) has not, to our knowledge, been subject to empirical investigation. Here we focus on pseudo-profound bullshit, which consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous. We presented participants with bullshit statements consisting of buzzwords randomly organized into statements with syntactic structure but no discernible meaning (e.g., “Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena”). Across multiple studies, the propensity to judge bullshit statements as profound was associated with a variety of conceptually relevant variables (e.g., intuitive cognitive style, supernatural belief). Parallel associations were less evident among profundity judgments for more conventionally profound (e.g., “A wet person does not fear the rain”) or mundane (e.g., “Newborn babies require constant attention”) statements. These results support the idea that some people are more receptive to this type of bullshit and that detecting it is not merely a matter of indiscriminate skepticism but rather a discernment of deceptive vagueness in otherwise impressive sounding claims. Our results also suggest that a bias toward accepting statements as true may be an important component of pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity.
Is the call to prayer a call to cooperate? A field experiment on the impact of religious salience on prosocial behavior
Authors: Duhaime Erik P. 
Published: January 2023

AbstractWhile religiosity is positively correlated with self-reported prosociality, observational and experimental studies on the long-hypothesized connection between religion and prosocial behavior have yielded mixed results. Recent work highlights the role of religious salience for stimulating prosocial behavior, but much of this research has involved priming Christian subjects in laboratory settings, limiting generalization to the real world. Here I present a field study conducted in the souks in the medina of Marrakesh, Morocco, which shows that religious salience can increase prosocial behavior with Muslim subjects in a natural setting. In an economic decision making task similar to a dictator game, shopkeepers demonstrated increased prosocial behavior when the Islamic call to prayer was audible compared to when it was not audible. This finding complements a growing literature on the connection between cultural cues, religious practices, and prosocial behavior, and supports the hypothesis that religious rituals play a role in galvanizing prosocial behavior.
Comparing the effect of rational and emotional appeals on donation behavior
Authors: Lindauer Matthew , Mayorga Marcus , Greene Joshua , Slovic Paul , Västfjäll Daniel , Singer Peter 
Published: January 2023

AbstractWe present evidence from a pre-registered experiment indicating that a philosophical argument – a type of rational appeal – can persuade people to make charitable donations. The rational appeal we used follows Singer’s “shallow pond” argument (1972), while incorporating an evolutionary debunking argument (Paxton, Ungar and Greene, 2012) against favoring nearby victims over distant ones. The effectiveness of this rational appeal did not differ significantly from that of a well-tested emotional appeal involving an image of a single child in need (Small, Loewenstein and Slovic, 2007). This is a surprising result, given evidence that emotions are the primary drivers of moral action, a view that has been very influential in the work of development organizations. We found no support for our hypothesis that combining our rational and emotional appeals would have a stronger effect than either appeal in isolation. However, our finding that both kinds of appeal can increase charitable donations is cause for optimism, especially concerning the potential efficacy of well-designed rational appeals. We consider the significance of these findings for moral psychology, ethics, and the work of organizations aiming to alleviate severe poverty.
Taking risks for the best: Maximizing and risk-taking tendencies
Authors: Qiu Tian , Bai Yang , Lu Jingyi 
Published: January 2023

AbstractMaximizing is characterized by aspirations for the highest standards. The current study explored the relationship between maximizing and risk-taking tendencies in decisions subject to risk. We propose that people first refer to expectation (i.e., the overall utility expected from an alternative) when taking risky decisions. If expectation clearly identifies the best option, maximizing will not be correlated with risk-taking tendencies. If not, people refer to maximizing to reach a decision. Maximizing will be positively associated with risk-taking tendencies because the “upper bound” of risky options helps achieve the goal of seeking the best. Four studies showed that risk-taking tendencies increased with maximizing when the options had similar expectations (Studies 1 to 3). When expectations between options were clearly different (vs. similar), the positive relationship between maximizing and risk-taking tendencies was reduced (Study 4). These findings provide an insight into how maximizing is related to risk seeking.
Donors vastly underestimate differences in charities’ effectiveness
Authors: Caviola Lucius , Schubert Stefan , Teperman Elliot , Moss David , Greenberg Spencer , Faber Nadira S. 
Published: January 2023

AbstractSome charities are much more cost-effective than other charities, which means that they can save many more lives with the same amount of money. Yet most donations do not go to the most effective charities. Why is that? We hypothesized that part of the reason is that people underestimate how much more effective the most effective charities are compared with the average charity. Thus, they do not know how much more good they could do if they donated to the most effective charities. We studied this hypothesis using samples of the general population, students, experts, and effective altruists in five studies. We found that lay people estimated that among charities helping the global poor, the most effective charities are 1.5 times more effective than the average charity (Studies 1 and 2). Effective altruists, in contrast, estimated the difference to be factor 50 (Study 3) and experts estimated the factor to be 100 (Study 4). We found that participants donated more to the most effective charity, and less to an average charity, when informed about the large difference in cost-effectiveness (Study 5). In conclusion, misconceptions about the difference in effectiveness between charities is thus likely one reason, among many, why people donate ineffectively.
Are the symptoms really remitting? How the subjective interpretation of outcomes can produce an illusion of causality
Authors: Blanco Fernando , Moreno-Fernández Maria Manuela , Matute Helena 
Published: January 2023

AbstractJudgments of a treatment’s effectiveness are usually biased by the probability with which the outcome (e.g., symptom relief) appears: even when the treatment is completely ineffective (i.e., there is a null contingency between cause and outcome), judgments tend to be higher when outcomes appear with high probability. In this research, we present ambiguous stimuli, expecting to find individual differences in the tendency to interpret them as outcomes. In Experiment 1, judgments of effectiveness of a completely ineffective treatment increased with the spontaneous tendency of participants to interpret ambiguous stimuli as outcome occurrences (i.e., healings). In Experiment 2, this interpretation bias was affected by the overall treatment-outcome contingency, suggesting that the tendency to interpret ambiguous stimuli as outcomes is learned and context-dependent. In conclusion, we show that, to understand how judgments of effectiveness are affected by outcome probability, we need to also take into account the variable tendency of people to interpret ambiguous information as outcome occurrences.
It’s still bullshit: Reply to Dalton (2016)
Authors: Pennycook Gordon , Cheyne James Allan , Barr Nathaniel , Koehler Derek J. , Fugelsang Jonathan A. 
Published: January 2023

AbstractIn reply to Dalton (2016), we argue that bullshit is defined in terms of how it is produced, not how it is interpreted. We agree that it can be interpreted as profound by some readers (and assumed as much in the original paper). Nonetheless, we present additional evidence against the possibility that more reflective thinkers are more inclined to interpret bullshit statements as profound.
The non-effects of repeated exposure to the Cognitive Reflection Test
Authors: Meyer Andrew , Zhou Elizabeth , Frederick Shane 
Published: January 2023

AbstractWe estimate the effects of repeated exposure to the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) by examining 14,053 MTurk subjects who took the test up to 25 times. In contrast with inferences drawn from self-reported prior exposure to the CRT, we find that prior exposure usually fails to improve scores. On average, respondents get only 0.024 additional items correct per exposure, and this small increase is driven entirely by the minority of subjects who continue to spend time reflecting on the items. Moreover, later scores retain the predictive validity of earlier scores, even when they differ, because initial success and later improvement appear to measure the same thing.