Bridging the gap between autonomous and predetermined paradigms: The role of sampling in evaluative learning.

Hütter, Mandy; Niese, Zachary Adolph; Ihmels, Max

doi:10.1037/xge0001172

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 70 publications

(127 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Participants. As effect size estimations were not available for this first experiment, we based our sample size estimation on a previous, similar experiment conducted in our lab (Hütter et al, 2021), which estimated required sample size at N = 74. Moreover, the experiment was embedded in an experimental session containing other unrelated experiments, which allowed us to collect data of 83 participants.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As we expect that the goal will affect sampling strategies and, consequently, the sample obtained (H1) and that social targets will be evaluated according to the obtained samples (H2), we expect sample size to (partially) mediate the relationship between the sample (actuarial judgment) and the impression formed. In other words, participants will continue sampling those interaction partners they already have a positive impression of (e.g., Fiedler, 2000;Hütter, Niese, & Ihmels, 2021). Thus, sample size will be larger for trustworthy interaction partners.…”

Section: Overview Of Experiments and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although we made the claim that by giving participants autonomy over the sampling process, we increase the external validity of our paradigm (Hütter et al, 2021), some aspects of the experimental procedure could still be considered artificial. For instance, the number of social targets from which to make selections is much denser in time and space than in most real-world situations.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Navigating the Social Environment: Linking Motivations, Impressions, and Behaviors Via Sampling Approach

Biella¹,

Hütter²

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our current understanding of impression formation is based on experiments in which participants have no control over the information they receive. This limits the ecological realism of experimental situations upon which scientific claims are based. We present a research paradigm that gives participants control over the information search by allowing them to collect their own information samples. The present work investigates how people explore the social environment and how the sampled information informs the impressions that people form. Four experiments tested theoretically driven predictions related to information sampling patterns under interested and disinterested information search targeting the trustworthiness of several social targets. Under interested information search, we documented the early truncation of the sampling of social targets that showed untrustworthy behavior early on. Under disinterested information search, participants sampled the social targets more extensively and systematically, avoiding small sample biases. Our experiments further show that, once obtained, the sampled information accurately determines the final impression. Moreover, we document a direct link between the sampled information and subsequent behaviors consisting of trustworthiness predictions and choosing a partner with whom to play a trust game. By investigating the emergence of trustworthiness impressions by means of sampling, the present research informs two lines of research, the origins of trustworthiness and sampling accounts of judgment and decision-making.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Overview Of Experiments and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Navigating the Social Environment: Linking Motivations, Impressions, and Behaviors Via Sampling Approach

Biella¹,

Hütter²

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because monitoring and control are intertwined in the quality checks performed during cognitive tasks, many MM findings entail blends of both metacognitive functions. For instance, Hütter et al’s (2022) recent research on evaluative conditioning revealed a combination of myopia for stimulus monitoring and feedback control. Unlike in traditional designs but in line with real life, participants could themselves sample conditioned-stimulus faces that were paired with positive or negative pictures as unconditioned stimuli, according to an experimental feedback plan.…”

Section: Blends Of Monitoring and Control Difficultiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metacognitive Myopia: A Major Obstacle on the Way to Rationality

Fiedler

Prager

McCaughey

2023

Curr Dir Psychol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The notion of metacognitive myopia refers to a conspicuous weakness of the quality control of memory and reasoning processes. Although people are often remarkably sensitive even to complex samples of information when making evaluative judgments and decisions, their uncritical and naive tendency to take the validity of sampled information for granted constitutes a major obstacle to rational behavior. After illustrating this phenomenon with reference to prominent biases (base-rate neglect, misattribution, perseverance), we decompose metacognitive myopia into two distinct but intertwined functions, monitoring and control. We offer explanations for why effectively monitoring the biases resulting from information sampling in an uncertain world is so difficult and why the control function is severely restricted by the lack of volitional control over mental actions. Because of these and other difficulties, metacognitive myopia constitutes a major obstacle to rational judgment and decision making.

show abstract

“…That is, the increased closeness toward the stronger reciprocator is due to the more frequent reciprocation of the participants' selection decisions by the stronger reciprocator. However, an alternative explanation, the selection‐based one, in terms of a sampling decision effect (Hütter et al, 2022) might be proposed. Specifically, according to Hütter and colleagues (2022), actively selecting a stimulus (i.e., an interaction partner) increases the liking of the stimulus and therefore, selecting one of the two targets more frequently might be enough to induce increased closeness within our paradigm.…”

Section: Mechanisms and Explanationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The interaction game: A reciprocity‐based minimal paradigm for the induction of social distance

Biella

Rebholz

Holthausen

et al. 2023

J Applied Social Pyschol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The investigation of how social distance affects psychological phenomena has relied mostly on comparisons between strangers and acquaintances. Such an operationalization suffers from a confound between social distance and acquaintance. We propose an experimental paradigm that manipulates social distance while avoiding the aforementioned confound. By relying on reciprocity and known social tie formation mechanisms, the Interaction Game provides researchers with a powerful tool for the investigation of social distance effects without inducing negative affective or emotional states. Four preregistered experiments demonstrate the internal and external validity of the paradigm. The capability of manipulating social distance in a targeted manner constitutes a critical step towards advancing our knowledge of the impact of such metrics on human cognition and behavior.Moreover, Experiment 4 demonstrates that the Interaction Game can induce social distance that is free of acquaintanceship, and that such a minimal manipulation is sufficient for inducing close-other favoritism in a social discounting task. These findings expand our understanding of social distance as a powerful mechanism underlying social judgments and behaviors. | INTRODUCTIONSocial distance is the structuring metric of the social world. It serves the purpose of distinguishing kin from unrelated others, friends from enemies, and ingroups from outgroups. Within these categories, social distance further separates siblings from other relatives, partners from peers, and acquaintances from strangers. As framed by Aron and colleagues (1992), "closeness has generally been understood as what distinguishes among relationship categories" (p. 596, Aron et al., 1992). More recently, social distance has been defined as "the perceived distance between individuals or groups" (Kazdin, 2000) highlighting its subjective nature, and as "the emotional proximity induced by the situation" (Charness & Gneezy, 2008) stressing its dynamics and context dependency. Social distance thereby fulfills our innate need to order the social world we live in by reducing complexity (Fiske, 1992). Its central position in shaping and navigating the social environment (Buss, 1990;Cosmides & Tooby, 1992) makes social distance a construct relevant to many different disciplines, from social psychology to evolutionary and cognitive psychology, and behavioral sciences like decision-making.

show abstract

Bridging the gap between autonomous and predetermined paradigms: The role of sampling in evaluative learning.

Cited by 9 publications

References 70 publications

Navigating the Social Environment: Linking Motivations, Impressions, and Behaviors Via Sampling Approach

Navigating the Social Environment: Linking Motivations, Impressions, and Behaviors Via Sampling Approach

Metacognitive Myopia: A Major Obstacle on the Way to Rationality

The interaction game: A reciprocity‐based minimal paradigm for the induction of social distance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About