Graphs can represent complex information in accessible ways. Unfortunately, many graphs are poorly designed and lead to errors in judgment and decision-making. Here, we examine the influence of ...distorted graphs used by advertisers and major news organizations to communicate risks. Results indicated that the distorted graphs were associated with large judgment errors and that cognitive abilities (e.g., numeracy, graph literacy, cognitive reflection) predicted differences in error rates. Eye-tracking results revealed a strong link between elaborative information search and stimuli-memory, which mediated the ability-judgment relationship. Discussion focuses on cognitive mechanisms (e.g., elaborative encoding), implications for HFES graph design guidelines, and emerging opportunities for personalized decision support.
Individual differences in cognitive abilities and skills can predict normatively superior and logically consistent judgments and decisions. The current experiment investigates the processes that ...mediate individual differences in risky choices. We assessed working memory span, numeracy, and cognitive impulsivity and conducted a protocol analysis to trace variations in conscious deliberative processes. People higher in cognitive abilities made more choices consistent with expected values; however, expected-value choices rarely resulted from expected-value calculations. Instead, the cognitive ability and choice relationship was mediated by the number of simple considerations made during decision making --- e.g., transforming probabilities and considering the relative size of gains. Results imply that, even in simple lotteries, superior risky decisions associated with cognitive abilities and controlled cognition can reflect metacognitive dynamics and elaborative heuristic search processes, rather than normative calculations. Modes of cognitive control (e.g., dual process dynamics) and implications for process models of risky decision-making (e.g., priority heuristic) are discussed.
i
The Routledge Handbook of Neuroethics offers the reader an informed view of how the brain sciences are being used to approach, understand, and reinvigorate traditional philosophical questions, as ...well as how those questions, with the grounding influence of neuroscience, are being revisited beyond clinical and research domains. It also examines how contemporary neuroscience research might ultimately impact our understanding of relationships, flourishing, and human nature. Written by 61 key scholars and fresh voices, the Handbook’s easy-to-follow chapters appear here for the first time in print and represent the wide range of viewpoints in neuroethics. The volume spotlights new technologies and historical articulations of key problems, issues, and concepts and includes cross-referencing between chapters to highlight the complex interactions of concepts and ideas within neuroethics. These features enhance the Handbook’s utility by providing readers with a contextual map for different approaches to issues and a guide to further avenues of interest.ii
iii
Measuring numeracy Cokely, Edward T.; Ghazal, Saima; Garcia-Retamero, Rocio
Numerical Reasoning in Judgments and Decision Making about Health,
06/2014
Book Chapter
The past ten years have seen multiple attempts to estimate the relation between the global personality trait extraversion and compatibilist free will judgments. Here, we contribute to that line of ...research by conducting a meta-analysis of 17 published and eight unpublished studies (N = 2,811) estimating that relation. Overall, the mean effect size was modest but remarkably robust across materials, locations, and labs (z = .19, 95% CI .15-.24, p < .001). No significant publication bias was detected in the studies (t (23) = 1.88, p = .07). While there was no significant heterogeneity in the studies (Q (24) = 34.42, p = .08, I
2
= 26.05), a moderator analysis suggested that the effect is strongest in cases that contain highly affective actions (e.g., murder) (z = .22, 95% CI .17-.28, p < .001) and weakest in cases that contain actions with low affect (e.g., asking whether free will is compatible with determinism) (z = .09, 95% CI -.05-.23, p = .22). The meta-analysis provides additional evidence that extraversion is related to compatibilist free will judgments and helps to identify opportunities to discover boundary conditions and more proximal causal mechanisms for the relation. The results of the meta-analysis also have implications for informed decision making.
This chapter provides an overview of some of the evidence suggesting that philosophical values are linked to heritable traits that manifest as social, cognitive, and neurological differences in one's ...behavior and psychology. It discusses implications of the results, including the substantial costs of paternalistic policies and the potential benefits of a science for informed decision making. The chapter focuses on the fundamental philosophical values are systematically fragmented and often predicted by global, heritable personality traits. In the arena of medical-decision making, they can clearly see conflicts in two fundamental goals: beneficence and protecting autonomy. The medical context is an illustrative example because there are fairly well-defined standards for goals of decisions, and almost every human being faces medical decisions. In order for paternalism to be justified, a sufficient good must be accrued to offset the violations of autonomy, and the person affected must judge the good to be a good.
•Direct comparison of all currently existing free will scales.•Creation of a short, 5-item free will scale.•Additional evidence free will attitudes predict real-world behavioral intentions.
...Theoretically, attitudes about freedom and punishment can shape people’s decisions and cause pernicious disagreements (e.g., political policies). Several scales measure free will beliefs, partially to help understand disagreements about theoretical and practical issues. We contribute to these efforts by directly comparing existing measures and by introducing a short measure of free will related attitudes. Studies 1, 2, and 3 (Ns = 221, 225, 244) factor analyzed all items in existing scales of free will and moral responsibility, resulting in two prominent factors: Beliefs in Free Will and Beliefs in Punishment. Study 4 (N = 269) presents evidence for the 2-factor structure from a nationally representative sample. Study 5 (N = 108) gives evidence of the utility of the Free Will and Punishment scale in predicting free will relevant beliefs and attitudes. As such, the Free Will and Punishment scale is likely useful when longer instruments are not practically possible.
Several studies demonstrate a consistent, positive relationship between cognitive ability measures and normatively superior judgment and decision behavior. However, little is known about the ...cognitive processes and mechanisms that give rise to these individual differences or more generally produce rational judgments under uncertainty. In a series of two experiments, protocol analysis and individual difference measures were used to demonstrate that, in contrast to the processes predicted by a rational theory (i.e. expected value calculations), rational choices often arise from combinations of simple considerations. These processes are similar to those predicted by the priority heuristic although the priority heuristic otherwise predicted choices poorly, at or below chance levels. Critically, individual differences in elaborative processes (e.g. more and more varied combinations of simple considerations) were strongly positively related to rational choices and fully mediated the cognitive ability and rational choice relationship. Implications for descriptive and process level models of choice are discussed.
