The authors evaluated the reliability and validity of a set of 7 behavioral decision-making tasks, measuring different aspects of the decision-making process. The tasks were administered to individuals from diverse populations. Participants showed relatively consistent performance within and across the 7 tasks, which were then aggregated into an Adult Decision-Making Competence (A-DMC) index that showed good reliability. The validity of the 7 tasks and of overall A-DMC emerges in significant relationships with measures of socioeconomic status, cognitive ability, and decision-making styles. Participants who performed better on the A-DMC were less likely to report negative life events indicative of poor decision making, as measured by the Decision Outcomes Inventory. Significant predictive validity remains when controlling for demographic measures, measures of cognitive ability, and constructive decision-making styles. Thus, A-DMC appears to be a distinct construct relevant to adults' real-world decisions.

In a national online survey, 505 participants reported their perceptions of energy consumption and savings for a variety of household, transportation, and recycling activities. When asked for the most effective strategy they could implement to conserve energy, most participants mentioned curtailment (e.g., turning off lights, driving less) rather than efficiency improvements (e.g., installing more efficient light bulbs and appliances), in contrast to experts' recommendations. For a sample of 15 activities, participants underestimated energy use and savings by a factor of 2.8 on average, with small overestimates for low-energy activities and large underestimates for high-energy activities. Additional estimation and ranking tasks also yielded relatively flat functions for perceived energy use and savings. Across several tasks, participants with higher numeracy scores and stronger proenvironmental attitudes had more accurate perceptions. The serious deficiencies highlighted by these results suggest that well-designed efforts to improve the public's understanding of energy use and savings could pay large dividends.climate change | decision making | judgment | environmental behavior | anchoring A nthropogenic CO 2 emissions are contributing to global climate change (1) and could negatively impact our way of life if serious action is further delayed. The United States produces 21% of the world's CO 2 emissions, with 98% of US emissions attributed to energy consumption (2).According to Pacala and Socolow (3), increasing energy efficiency and curtailing activities that consume energy may be our cheapest options for stabilizing atmospheric CO 2 concentrations below a doubling of preindustrial concentrations. Following the analogy of stabilization wedges (3), Dietz et al. (4) devised a potential behavioral wedge, recommending specific behavioral changes, such as weatherization investments, to be adopted by US households to decrease their emissions. Vandenbergh et al. (5) identified seven actions, such as reducing automobile idling and substituting compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) for incandescent bulbs, that have the potential to achieve large emission reductions at a low cost to the government and with a net savings for individuals. In related work, Gardner and Stern (6) identified a short list of the most effective actions US households could take to decrease their contributions to climate change. They argued that by changing the selection and use of household and motor vehicle technologies, households could reduce their energy consumption by nearly 30%-without waiting for new technologies, making major economic sacrifices, or losing a sense of well-being. If households effectively implemented all of Gardner and Stern's recommended changes, US energy consumption would be reduced by approximately 11%. Similarly, Dietz et al. (4) estimated that behavioral interventions could reasonably achieve a 20% reduction in CO 2 emissions from household energy use (a 7.4% reduction in total US emissions) within 10 y.Gardner and...

No abstract

Objectives Theories of aging posit that older adult age is associated with less negative emotions, but few studies have examined age differences at times of novel challenges. As COVID-19 spread in the United States, this study therefore aimed to examine age differences in risk perceptions, anxiety, and depression. Method In March 2020, a nationally representative address-based sample of 6,666 U.S. adults assessed their perceived risk of getting COVID-19, dying if getting it, getting quarantined, losing their job (if currently working), and running out of money. They completed a mental health assessment for anxiety and depression. Demographic variables and precrisis depression diagnosis had previously been reported. Results In regression analyses controlling for demographic variables and survey date, older adult age was associated with perceiving larger risks of dying if getting COVID-19, but with perceiving less risk of getting COVID-19, getting quarantined, or running out of money, as well as less depression and anxiety. Findings held after additionally controlling for precrisis reports of depression diagnosis. Discussion With the exception of perceived infection-fatality risk, U.S. adults who were relatively older appeared to have a more optimistic outlook and better mental health during the early stages of the pandemic. Interventions may be needed to help people of all ages maintain realistic perceptions of the risks, while also managing depression and anxiety during the COVID-19 crisis. Implications for risk communication and mental health interventions are discussed.

Introduction: Perceptions of health risks inform decisions about protective behaviors, but COVID-19 was an unfamiliar risk as it began to spread across the U.S. In the initial stage of the epidemic, authors examined perceived risks for COVID-19 infection and infection fatality and whether these risk perceptions were associated with protective behaviors. They also examined whether findings differed between later versus earlier responders.Methods: Between March 10 and March 31, 2020, a cross-sectional online survey was conducted with a nationally representative U.S. sample (n=6,684). Half responded before March 13, 2020 (versus later). Participants assessed their risks of COVID-19 infection and infection fatality (0%−100%) which were transformed into quartiles (1−4). They reported their implementation of protective behaviors like handwashing and social distancing (yes/no). Analyses were conducted in April-May 2020.Results: Median perceived risk was 10.00% for COVID-19 infection and 5.00% for infection fatality, but respondents showed large disagreement. An increase of 1 quartile in perceived infection risk was associated with being 1.45 times (95% CI=1.33, 1.58) more likely to report handwashing, with perceived infection fatality risk showing no significant association. When predicting social distancing behaviors such as avoiding crowds, both quartile-based risk perceptions were significant (OR=1.24, 95% CI=1.17, 1.30 for infection and OR=1.19, 95% CI=1.13, 1.26 for infection fatality). Perceived COVID-19 infection risk, protective behaviors, and their relationship increased among later (versus earlier) responders.Conclusions: Despite disagreements about the risks, people perceiving greater risks were more likely to implement protective behaviors-especially later (versus earlier) in March 2020. These findings have implications for risk communication.

No abstract

Although previous studies investigated the relationship between general cognitive abilities and decision making, few have characterized specific cognitive abilities underlying decision-making competence. In this paper, we focus on executive functions, control processes involved in the regulation of cognition. Specifically, we report on an individual-differences study that investigated the relationship of executive functioning (EF) and general cognitive abilities (fluid intelligence and numeracy) with different aspects of decision-making competence. Individual differences in EF components explained aspects of decision-making competence even after controlling for fluid intelligence and numeracy. However, different aspects of decision-making competence varied in the extent to which they relied on different executive functions. In particular, resistance to framing effects, the ability to apply decision rules, and successful engagement in cognitive reflection partially depend on individual differences on the monitoring/inhibition dimension of EF. The ability to provide consistent judgments in risk perception is related to the shifting aspect of EF. The ability to recognize social norms and resistance to sunk costs were not significantly related to EF, thus supporting the idea that executive control is not a major determinant of these aspects of decision-making competence. Finally, substantial variance in some of the decision-making tasks remained unexplained, suggesting that other cognitive or non-cognitive abilities need to be considered in future studies

No abstract