2015
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01770
View full text |Buy / Rent full text
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: Individual differences in people's susceptibility to heuristics and biases (HB) are often measured by multiple-bias questionnaires consisting of one or a few items for each bias. This research approach relies on the assumptions that (1) different versions of a decision bias task measure are interchangeable as they measure the same cognitive failure; and (2) that some combination of these tasks measures the same underlying construct. Based on these assumptions, in Study 1 we developed two versions of a new deci… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
33
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 63 publications
(91 reference statements)
3
33
0
Order By: Relevance
“…They found that contrary to other tested biases, people's ability to resist framing did not correlate with either reported negative life events or with decision‐making style measures. In a comprehensive exploration of 13 decision biases, Aczel et al () found that performance on the framing effect showed no significant correlation with the Cognitive Reflection Task (Frederick, ) and it consistently did not share common factor with any of the 12 other measured decision biases. By shedding light on these results, we do not aim to assess the degree to which the alternative accounts provide satisfactory explanation for the framing effect or to judge whether showing a framing effect reflects irrational behavior.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…They found that contrary to other tested biases, people's ability to resist framing did not correlate with either reported negative life events or with decision‐making style measures. In a comprehensive exploration of 13 decision biases, Aczel et al () found that performance on the framing effect showed no significant correlation with the Cognitive Reflection Task (Frederick, ) and it consistently did not share common factor with any of the 12 other measured decision biases. By shedding light on these results, we do not aim to assess the degree to which the alternative accounts provide satisfactory explanation for the framing effect or to judge whether showing a framing effect reflects irrational behavior.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the attribute framing tasks, participants were asked to give preference ratings in both positively and negatively framed hypothetical scenarios; in the risky‐choice framing task, participants were asked to choose between a risky and a safe option in both gain and loss frame conditions. In three of the four conditions, seven commonly used heuristics and biases (HB) tasks were chosen from previous literature (approximately 20 minutes; Aczel, Bago, Szollosi, Foldes, & Lukacs, ). These tasks were included solely for masking purposes, and their presentation order was fixed.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, it is doubtful whether they can be viewed as proper measures of cognitive functioning of the same ilk as those captured by tests of intelligence. The study of Aczel et al [34] raises similar questions about the existence of a separate rationality factor.…”
Section: Economics and Decision-makingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…CRT is also negatively related to a wide range of cognitive biases in judgment and decision-making (e.g., Toplak and Stanovich, 2002 ; Campitelli and Labollita, 2010 ; Toplak et al, 2011 ; Baldi et al, 2013 ). The evidence regarding the relation between framing susceptibility and CRT is mixed, however, with some literature reporting positive relations ( Oechssler et al, 2009 ; Noori, 2016 ) and other literature reporting no relation ( Toplak et al, 2014 ; Aczel et al, 2015 ). There is also disagreement about what CRT measures.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%