Questions related to Judgment and Decision Making
In my opinion, when judgments are made in court, a number of factors play an important role in their formation. On the one hand, there is, of course, the application of the law, the observance of established case law and, depending on the context, an interpretative framework. It is precisely in the latter case that the pre-understanding of a judge is likely to have a relevance that should not be underestimated. Is there any literature or empirical studies on this subject?
Noise is stated as the (deviation from mean) by (mean) in Kahneman et al., 2016.
Is there any work that extended this methodology further?
- Kahneman, D., Rosenfield, A. M., Gandhi, L., & Blaser, T. (2016). Noise. Harvard Bus Rev, 38-46.
We are launching a research project looking at how federal law enforcement individuals in the United States who decide on which cases to open make those determinations. Specifically, most federal law enforcement agencies get orders of magnitude more complaints than they can adequately investigate. As such, they must triage those based on multiple factors (personnel resources available, financial loss, impact, etc.) If anyone has pointers to any systematic reviews of decision making in that triage process it would be appreciated.
In mainstream intellectual humanitarian discourse we are often encouraged not to stereotype. While stereotypes are not always right, they tell part of the truth. So how far does the rejection of stereotypes or widely circulated statements divert us from seeing the truth?
If I use purposive sampling in my qualitative study, do I need to set the sample size? If yes, then how?
My hypothesis is that a certain mathematical model will make more accurate predictions than humans. The model will output probabilities of a future event happening. Whether the event actually happened will determine success. I also have data on humans making those predictions (binary) and success rate. How do I compare accuracy of the model with humans in a scientific way?
Can someone contribute to this question? I have observed that many humans increase their monitoring of uncertain things when their own unmanageable stressors increase. But when I look around nature, I do not seem to see any species (or natural phenomena) that exist to "monitor" the actions of other phenomena... This seems a human oddity (the belief that nature needs to be watched over by people). Yet, the physical elements can't really "do" anything they aren't made to do (choose to react incorrectly). Why do we worry they won't do the "right" thing? If I mix so much of this with so much of that, I don't have to wonder if they will react well. Thoughts please?
We are conducting a meta-analysis on the role of intuition vs deliberation in dishonesty. Specifically, we are interested in experiments using two types of tasks, measuring the decision to lie (see 1a below) or the cognitive cost of lying (see 1b below), and manipulating cognitive processing (see 2 below). We would love to include any studies (published or unpublished) you might have run that meet the following criteria:
1a) Participants engage in one or more (incentivized or hypothetical) tasks allowing them to boost self (and/or other’s) profit by lying (e.g., tasks like Gneezy’s deception game, privately predicting coin tosses, reporting outcome of die rolls, solving numerical matrices, identifying where more dots appear, and more). We are interested both in studies including a control condition in which lying is not possible, and in studies in which lying is assessed by comparing behavior to the expected performance if participants are honest.
1b) Participants engage in a computerized task recording reaction times for lie and for truth trials, at least 20 trials each, within the same subject (e.g., using the Differentiation of Deception paradigm, Autobiographical Implicit Association Test, Sheffield Lie test, TARA, Concealed Information Test / Guilty Knowledge Test).
2) Cognitive processing capacity was experimentally manipulated, using for example: cognitive load, time pressure/delay, (ego) depletion, intuition/deliberation inductions (e.g. instructing participants to decide intuitively vs deliberatively, or having them recall a time in their life where intuition vs deliberation worked out well), sleep deprivation, alcohol, time of day effects, stress / anxiety, 2nd language, or any other manipulation of theoretical relevance.
To illustrate, some exemplar studies that meet these criteria:
1a) The decision to lie:
van ’t Veer, A. E., Stel, M., & van Beest, I. (2014). Limited capacity to lie: Cognitive load interferes with being dishonest. Judgment and Decision Making, 9, 199-206
Zhong, C. B. (2011). The ethical dangers of deliberative decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56, 1–25
Shalvi, S., Eldar, O., & Bereby-Meyer, Y. (2012). Honesty requires time (and lack of justifications). Psychological Science, 23, 1264–1270
Gunia, B.C., Wang, L., Huang, L., Wang, J. & Murnighan, J.K. (2012). Contemplation and conversation: subtle Influences on moral decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 55,13–33.
1b) Cognitive costs of lying:
Visu-Petra, G., Varga, M., Miclea, M., & Visu-Petra, L. (2013). When interference helps:
increasing executive load to facilitate deception detection in the concealed information
test. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 146. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00146
Debey, E., Verschuere, B., & Crombez, G. (2012). Lying and executive control: An experimental investigation using ego depletion and goal neglect. Acta Psychologica, 140, 133-141.
Suchotzki, K., Crombez, G., Debey, E., Van Oorsouw, K., & Verschuere, B. (2014). In Vino Veritas? – Alcohol, Response Inhibition and Lying. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 50, 74-81.
If you have any studies you'd like to be included, please send them to us (email@example.com):
i) the raw data (in spss, excel, csv format), ideally including any subjects who might have been excluded from your main analyses (in particular, those excluded for failing manipulation checks for the cognitive process manipulation); or, if you would rather not share raw data but are willing to run tests on the data for us, let us know and we will follow up with details.
ii) a key explaining what each data column corresponds to
iii) details of the experimental setup - i.e. what the exact game/payoff structure was (1a) or what the exact RT paradigm was (1b), and how exactly the cognitive processing manipulation was implemented
iv) the subject pool and location in which the experiment was conducted (e.g. Yale undergrads in the Yale School of Management laboratory, or US residents on Amazon Mechanical Turk)
iv) how you would like us to cite your work (e.g., Rand (2016) title, Unpublished data.)
Thanks very much!
Nils Köbis, Shaul Shalvi, Bruno Verschuere, David Rand, & Yoella Bereby-Meyer
Two studies found self-uncertainty salience increased the subjective distance with the past self. How to build a rational story of them in the introduction? I thought about temporal self-appraisal theory, temporal comparison theory, construal level theory etc. But still cannot build a satisfactory rationale and highlight the contribution. The results are solid and interesting, Happy to hear some suggestions and may cooperate on the revision of this paper.
We started a project as thesis, and it’s around euthanasia and moral judgment among physicians or reflections on euthanasia among physicians . Now the point is that, how can we make our thesis topic with a cognition component? we should make our topic around cognition psychology. In other word, we want to investigate about moral judgment in term of a cognition variable. we want to investigate the relationship between physicians perspective around euthanasia on the one hand and they moral judgment in medical job on the other hand. Now we need to know, what do we shall do to get that? If possible, introduce us some resources, papers or help us to build our topic. Also if you know everybody can help us, please introduce.
Thank you all.
I am conducting research into factors which are a hindrance to judicial independence (both actual and perceived) in developing nations who are heavily reliant on foreign aid.
I'm working in my doctoral thesis and I will use Varela’s neurophenomenological approach in order to shed light about dual systems theory of decision making. I am working from dual system theory as Kahneman’s claim in decision-making area. I have a little background on system theory and I strongly believe that those two systems aren’t independent and I will try to modelling that interdependence in a formal way in order to experimental validation of the models.
In the neuro-phenomenology approach introduced by Varela the data are gathered from two sources: Phenomenological Experiences and Neurological Data. In my case I will use each of them as a complement of another one.
In gathering neurological data it is habitual to use fMRI scanning but actually in my country it seems very implausible to use this technology. I am trying to circumvent this hindrance using EEG instead of fMRI in order to gathering neurological data.
Then I will make a three-way contrast, first the neurological data about brain activity with the narratives of the experiences, second the neurological data with the tasks performances, and third the narratives of the experiences with the tasks performances. I think is a very novel approach to the decision-making subject and as I a true believer that research in decision-making always will be useful I am very eager about my research project.
My background is on engineer and it will be very useful to me if the kindly Research Gate community helps me identifying sources of works using EEG in Decision-Making Research.
I am looking for the methods like ELECTRE IV or MAXIMIN, and for papers where the problem of the criteriaincomparability is considered.
I am currently doing some quantitative research project which is try to seek the influence of peer reference groups on decision making at the luxury product. Then I am still searching for the reference group influence scale to be my measurement tools. Thankyou
Thank you for your willingness to answer my question!
I'm looking for previously used as well as original ways to measure character strengths experimentally.
I know it's a very broad question, but I'm currently casting a wide net to see what's out there and what might be the best experimental measure.
Ideally, I would like to use the suggested experimental measures in a web-based (online) experiment, so behavioral/experimental tasks that can be modified to online versions are more than welcomed.
Below is the list of 24 character strengths. Insights to any of them would be highly appreciated.
Self-regulation / self-control
Judgment (critical thinking)
Love of learning
Zest (vitality, enthusiasm)
Social intelligence (emotional IQ, personal IQ)
Appreciation of beauty and excellence
Thank you so much in advance!
I am designing a factorial survey ( vignette study) to measure some areas of decision making and need some advise on fractional factorial design, I have kind of defined for me the IV and DV but I can't understand how and where to insert it for fractional factorial design . Thank you
May I ask, why is it that "moral judgments" are more concerned with fairness, deservingness, and worthiness than about neediness? For this human sense, we do not acknowledge or provision for need unless we esteem the need deserving of aid. It seems more about agreement with our beliefs than it is about altruism - is that correct?
We do have a concept called "grace", which when pure does not care about worth at all; it does not see a past of ills or goods, or value of any kind; it does not consider deservingness or worth; it does not need agreement with any contingent thing. It sees need and fulfills it.
Why then, is morality not moral, while grace is not at all about morality? My thought on the paper "Altruism and fairness: Unnatural selection?" -- which I found to be quite valuable -- is that sexual selection with altruism peaking at epochs of greatest fertility, would be more a form of (unconsciously selfish) image management than altruistic motive, don't you think? Still, why do we do things for no hope of reward, since that could not be passed down or remembered? Why do some simply answer need with aid, and not with deliberation over worthiness? And why is it nearly always done anonymously (which could not be propagated or persisted)?
I’ve become interested in the literature on the measurement of social value orientation (SVO) because SVO is of increasing interest for behavioral economists. What puzzled me about the SVO tests is reciprocity. Assume you want to measure SVO for two players, A and B, using a test that relies on decomposed games like Liebrand’s ring test or the slider measure by Murphy, Ackermann and Handgraaf. Take as an example the dictator game in which both players choose between two self-other-allocations, x=(2,0) and y=(1,1). Assume that A chooses y. There are two reasons: (1) a concern for B’s payoff, and (2) a preference for reciprocity. (2) is a possible motivation behind A’s choice if A expects B to choose y and wants to reward B’s kindness by being kind. But this implies that SVO is sensitive to players’ expectations.
In the literature, I’ve found no discussion of reciprocity motives in relation to SVO tests, hence my question is: Has anyone seen a discussion of this issue, or does anyone know why the SVO literature remains silent about this issue?
There seems to be a desire among even top researchers in economics to conflate the two; but I don't know how well founded or established the connection is.