It’s a Trap! Instructional Manipulation Checks Prompt Systematic Thinking on “Tricky” Tasks

Hauser, David; Schwarz, Robert

doi:10.1177/2158244015584617

Cited by 143 publications

(140 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

135

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Towards a reliable repeated-measures beads task 9 question and could prompt systematic thinking (Hauser and Schwarz, 2015) it was presented last, so as not to affect participants" responses on other measures.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a reliable repeated-measures beads task for assessing the jumping to conclusions bias

McLean

Mattiske

Balzan

2018

Psychiatry Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The jumping to conclusions bias (JTC), in which some people gather less information than others before making a decision, has been linked to delusions in psychosis. JTC is usually identified via the beads task, in which a sequence of beads (the "target" sequence) is used to measure the amount of evidence participants require before making a decision. Yet, despite its common use, the reliability of the task has never been properly investigated. We investigated its reliability, and tested an alternate version which used distractor sequences to obfuscate the target sequence. Healthy participants (N = 212) were randomised into two groups. One group completed ten trials using the target sequence, while the other completed ten trials of the target sequence and three distractor sequences. Our data indicated the standard task may not be reliable over repeated measures, but that by including distractor sequences, the task becomes more believable, repeatable, and reliable. Additionally, excluding first-trial data (a "silent" practice trial) also improves repeatability. These improvements to the task are relevant to single trial studies, and will be especially useful to repeated-measures longitudinal, experimental, and treatment studies. Such repeated-measures studies are important for investigating the causal link between JTC and delusions.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a reliable repeated-measures beads task for assessing the jumping to conclusions bias

McLean

Mattiske

Balzan

2018

Psychiatry Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…"; 1 = Not at all, 7 = Extremely), two items regarding appropriateness of emotional expressions depending on gender ("It is appropriate for women to be more emotional than men", "It is appropriate for men to be more cold than women"; 1 = Definitely not, 7 = Definitely yes), and the 13-item Person-Thing Orientation scale (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely; Graziano, Habashi, & Woodcock, 2011). We included a simple attention check ("Select the number 2 so that we know you are paying attention"; 7-point scale) and placed it after the main measures to avoid prompting systematic thinking (Hauser & Schwarz, 2015).…”

Section: Does Maximizing Good Make People Look Bad?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Maximizing Good Make People Look Bad?

Montealegre¹,

Bush²,

Moss³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People make inferences about others depending on the way they arrive at their moral decisions. Here, we examine evaluations of people who make moral decisions through deliberation compared to those who decide based on empathy. To do so, we turn to charitable donations. People often fail to prioritize the cost-effectiveness of charities when donating . We argue that this pattern exists in part because donors who make charitable decisions by deliberating about the cost-effectiveness of charities are perceived as less moral and less desirable as social partners than those who decide based on empathizing with the recipients of the donation. Across six pre-registered studies using two different scenarios (N = 1,961), we presented participants with descriptions of people who thought about donation decisions by either deliberating about the costeffectiveness of charities, or by deciding based on empathy. Reliably, participants judged "deliberators" to have less positive moral character and to be less desirable as social partners than "empathizers." We found these results across different designs (between-subjects and within-subjects), when evaluating respondents of different genders (male and female), and for donations of different stakes (low and high). The negative reputational effects of deliberating were reduced if "deliberators" expressed empathy first. These results suggest that there may be disincentives for selecting charities based on their impact, since people are not socially rewarded for prioritizing charitable impact but are rewarded for signaling the right kinds of moral traits. We end by discussing implications and limitations of these findings.

show abstract

“…Oppenheimer et al 2009) 18 (Hauser & Schwarz 2015) 19 (Freedman 2008, Lin 2013 A felméréseinkben gyűjtött online kvótás lakossági minták nem tekinthetők olyan valószínűségi mintáknak amelyek alapján minden hezitálás nélkül, a szokásos tesztekkel következtethetünk a populációs paraméterekre. Azonban látni kell, hogy az elmúlt években végzett módszertani kutatások szerint az ilyen típusú mintákból, hasonló jellegű társadalompolitikai kérdések vizsgálatakor a változók közötti összefüggésekre vonatkozó eredmények nagyon hasonlóak a jobb minőségű mintákban mért eredményekhez.…”

Section: További Változók éS a Modellekunclassified

A téma-keretezés hatása a menekült-politikával kapcsolatos véleményekre

Béla¹

2016

RKKPT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1 Köszönöm Bognár Adriennek a pilot kutatás kivitelezésében és elemzésében, valamint a 2015-ös kutatás előkészítésében nyújtott segítségét. Köszönöm Kolozsi Ádámnak, az Index.hu tudományos újságírójának tanácsait és segítségét. Köszönöm az Index.hu együttműködését. Az empirikus felmérések egy részét a K 113208 sz. OTKA kutatás finanszírozta (kutatásvezető: Szakadát István, egüttműködéséért hálás vagyok). A felméréseket továbbá az MTA TK "Társadalmi konfliktusokra adott identitáspolitikai válaszok" c. "Inkubátor" program támogatta. Köszönettel tartozom Feischmidt Margitnak ezért és tartalmi tanácsaiért.

show abstract

It’s a Trap! Instructional Manipulation Checks Prompt Systematic Thinking on “Tricky” Tasks

Cited by 143 publications

References 21 publications

Towards a reliable repeated-measures beads task for assessing the jumping to conclusions bias

Towards a reliable repeated-measures beads task for assessing the jumping to conclusions bias

Does Maximizing Good Make People Look Bad?

A téma-keretezés hatása a menekült-politikával kapcsolatos véleményekre

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About