How reasoning, judgment, and decision making are colored by gist-based intuition: A fuzzy-trace theory approach.

Corbin, Jonathan C.; Reyna, Valerie F.; Weldon, Rebecca B.; Brainerd, Charles J.

doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.09.001

Cited by 72 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 113 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Respondents may not have distinguished much among the “10 times more,” “100 times more,” or “chemicals present only in cigarettes” scenarios because individuals often have difficulty interpreting information about magnitude (Hammitt and Graham, 1999; Neil et al, 1994) or felt that 10 times was sufficient, or “good enough,” to be interested in dual use and the increases beyond that (100 times or chemicals completely absent in e-cigarettes) were not necessary. Alternatively, as predicted by fuzzy trace theory, some respondents in the “10 times more” and “100 times more” scenarios may have thought of this information as simply “more” rather than noticing the exact amount (Corbin et al, 2015). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How hearing about harmful chemicals affects smokers' interest in dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes

Pepper

Byron

Ribisl

et al. 2017

Preventive Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Substantial harm could result from concurrent cigarette and e-cigarette use (i.e., dual use) were it to undermine smoking cessation. Perceptions of chemical exposure and resulting harms may influence dual use. We conducted a probability-based phone survey of 1164 U.S. adult cigarette smokers in 2014–2015 and analyzed results in 2016. In a between-subjects experiment, smokers heard a hypothetical scenario in which cigarettes and e-cigarettes had the same amount of harmful chemicals or cigarettes had more chemicals than e-cigarettes (10× more, 100× more, or chemicals were present only in cigarettes). Smokers indicated how the scenario would change their interest in dual use and perceived health harms. Few smokers (7%) who heard that the products have the same amount of chemicals were interested in initiating or increasing dual use. However, more smokers were interested when told that cigarettes have 10× more chemicals than e-cigarettes (31%), 100× more chemicals than e-cigarettes (32%), or chemicals were present only in cigarettes (43%) (all p < .001). Individuals told that cigarettes have more chemicals were more likely than those in the “same amount” scenario to perceive that cigarettes would be more harmful than e-cigarettes (79% vs. 41%, OR = 5.41, 95% CI = 4.08–7.17). These harm perceptions partially explained the relationship between chemical scenario and dual use interest. Smokers associated higher chemical amounts in cigarettes versus e-cigarettes with greater health harms from cigarettes and thus expressed increased interest in dual use. The findings suggest that disclosing amounts of chemicals in cigarette smoke and e-cigarette aerosol could unintentionally encourage dual use.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How hearing about harmful chemicals affects smokers' interest in dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes

Pepper

Byron

Ribisl

et al. 2017

Preventive Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Early theories proposed that expert knowledge is more critical for cue selection (i.e., what information should be looked for) than for cue weighting (i.e., how should the information be interpreted; Dawes, ; Einhorn, ). Advanced performers, ranging from chess grandmasters to cardiologists and intelligence analysts, have been found to be particularly good at extracting a meaningful gist from larger sets of data (Corbin, Reyna, Weldon, & Brainerd, ; De Groot, ; Reyna & Lloyd, ). In other words, their experience directs their attention to critical information.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing threats of violence: Professional skill or common sense?

Geurts

Granhag

Ask

et al. 2017

Journal Invest Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When faced with threats of violence, it is of great importance to assess the risk for actual harm to occur. Over the last decades, this task has developed into a domain of its own and professionals have specialised in threat assessment. However, it is yet unknown whether professional experience affects the quality of threat assessments. The present study examined how threat assessment professionals (N = 44), university students (N = 44), and laypersons (N = 45) assessed the risk for violence in three fictitious cases. The assessments (i.e., assigning risk values to different pieces of information) were found to be strikingly similar across the three groups.Yet, professionals agreed more with one another on their assessments, and professionals identified more relevant (empirically supported) threat cues when given the opportunity to request additional information. These results suggest that threat assessment professionals know better than nonprofessionals what information to look for, and hence, they may contribute most in the process of gathering information to clarify the threat. Such knowledge can help to optimise the use of expertise, which may improve the quality of threat assessments. The current findings can be of value to those who consult threat assessment professionals, as well as to the professionals themselves.

show abstract

“…The task calibration principle posits that despite the baseline preference for simple gist on reasoning problems, the demands of the response format and the specificity of the cues that are provided in the problem information influence that preference (Corbin, Weldon, Reyna, & Brainerd, 2015). The general rule is that reliance on gist shrinks as response formats and problem cues become increasingly numerical and differentiated (Wolfe & Reyna, 2010).…”

Section: Overview Of the Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overdistribution illusions: Categorical judgments produce them, confidence ratings reduce them.

Brainerd¹,

Nakamura²,

Reyna³

et al. 2017

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Overdistribution is a form of memory distortion in which an event is remembered as belonging to too many episodic states, states that are logically or empirically incompatible with each other. We investigated a response formatting method of suppressing two basic types of overdistribution, disjunction and conjunction illusions, which parallel some classic illusions in the judgment and decision making literature. In this method, subjects respond to memory probes by rating their confidence that test cues belong to specific episodic states (e.g., presented on List 1, presented on List 2), rather than by making the usual categorical judgments about those states. The central prediction, which was derived from the task calibration principle of fuzzy-trace theory, was that confidence ratings should reduce overdistribution by diminishing subjects’ reliance on noncompensatory gist memories. The data of three experiments agreed with that prediction. In Experiment 1, there were reliable disjunction illusions with categorical judgments but not with confidence ratings. In Experiment 2, both response formats produced reliable disjunction illusions, but those for confidence ratings were much smaller than those for categorical judgments. In Experiment 3, there were reliable conjunction illusions with categorical judgments but not with confidence ratings. Apropos of recent controversies over confidence-accuracy correlations in memory, such correlations were positive for hits, negative for correct rejections, and the two types of correlations were of equal magnitude.

show abstract

How reasoning, judgment, and decision making are colored by gist-based intuition: A fuzzy-trace theory approach.

Cited by 72 publications

References 113 publications

How hearing about harmful chemicals affects smokers' interest in dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes

How hearing about harmful chemicals affects smokers' interest in dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes

Assessing threats of violence: Professional skill or common sense?

Overdistribution illusions: Categorical judgments produce them, confidence ratings reduce them.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About