The appropriacy of averaging in the study of context effects

Liew, Shi Xian; Howe, Piers D. L.; Little, Daniel R.

doi:10.3758/s13423-016-1032-7

Cited by 59 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Very few participants produce all three effects within a single experiment, even though most people show the effects in isolation (Trueblood, Brown, & Heathcote, 2015). There are also large individual differences in the strength and co-occurrence of the effects (Liew, Howe, & Little, 2016). Thus, simply relying on a checklist of effects misses important aspects of the psychological phenomena being explored, and mischaracterizes the behavior for which an explanation is sought.…”

Section: Example 2: Context Effects In Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robust Modeling in Cognitive Science

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an attempt to increase the reliability of empirical findings, psychological scientists have recently proposed a number of changes in the practice of experimental psychology. Most current reform efforts have focused on the analysis of data and the reporting of findings for empirical studies. However, a large contingent of psychologists build models that explain psychological processes and test psychological theories using formal psychological models. Some, but not all, recommendations borne out of the broader reform movement bear upon the practice of behavioral or cognitive modeling. In this article, we consider which aspects of the current reform movement are relevant to psychological modelers, and we propose a number of techniques and practices aimed at making psychological modeling more transparent, trusted, and robust.Cognitive modeling | Reproducibility | Open science | Robustness | Model comparison You never want a serious crisis to go to waste . . . This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not before.

show abstract

Section: Example 2: Context Effects In Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robust Modeling in Cognitive Science

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, this inability lacks nomothetic validation (Lamiell, 1998;Liew, Howe, & Little, 2016;Shanteau, 1985;Weiss, 2007). That is, it might be that participants produced different patterns of factorial curves that averaged out to a set of parallel curves, with some participants actually being able to judge brightness ratios.…”

Section: Brightnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tests of the abilities to judge ratios of extensive and intensive sensory magnitudes

Masin

Brancaccio

Tomassetti

2019

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The assumption that people are able to numerically judge ratios of sensory magnitude is often used to scale sensations. In this study, we tested this assumption for the extensive sensation of length and the intensive sensations of heaviness and brightness. A ratio model fit judged length ratios accurately and fit judged heaviness and brightness ratios inaccurately. Also, most participants could not judge brightness ratios, even if they seemed able to respond nonverbally to the brightness ratios. These results suggest that people may generally be able to judge extensity ratios but not intensity ratios. Participants used auxiliary judgment operations to compensate for their lack of ability to judge intensity ratios. These auxiliary, nonratio operations were found to yield linear scales of intensive sensory magnitude.

show abstract

“…Other plausible estimates might lead to other beliefs and preferences. However, we speculate that different estimates would not affect the patterns of internal consistency, unless they greatly changed the relative locations of the alternatives in the choice set [33].…”

Section: Discussion and Policy Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 93%

How stable are preferences among emerging electricity generation technologies

Yang

Wong‐Parodi

Fischhoff

2019

Environ. Res. Commun.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coal-fired power plants with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), natural-gas-fired power plants with CCS, and Small Modular Reactors (SMR) are potentially important emerging energy technologies that could help mitigate climate change and contribute to a low-carbon future. Public opinion and preferences towards these technologies will affect their adoption when they are technologically ready to be implemented. This study examines the nature and stability of public preferences among these options. We find that participants have internally consistent preferences, when tested in several ways. Overall, they prefer SMRs to natural gas with CCS to coal with CCS. On a group level, these preferences depend on the choice alternatives, but not on how fully the technologies are described nor how far away a hypothetical power plant would be sited. On the individual level, preferences are related to participants' perceptions of the technology and their political ideology. Our findings suggest that presenting the three technologies together will produce the most balanced, informed judgment, with the least influence of political ideology.

show abstract

The appropriacy of averaging in the study of context effects

Cited by 59 publications

References 16 publications

Robust Modeling in Cognitive Science

Robust Modeling in Cognitive Science

Tests of the abilities to judge ratios of extensive and intensive sensory magnitudes

How stable are preferences among emerging electricity generation technologies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About