Search

The current study explores the validity of verbal probability assessments in a sequential and highly ambiguous task, that is, one in which it is virtually impossible to know or learn about the true probabilities of possible outcomes. Participants observed the pre-defined motion of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), such that the participant's success depended on the UAV reaching a target sector without being spotted by an opponent UAV. At several points in each trajectory, participants' task was to evaluate the likelihood of reaching the target successfully. The study utilized a 2 x 2 independent-groups factorial design to examine the effect of probability incentivization (Brier vs none), in which participants receive payment based on the nearness of their predictions to actual outcomes, and informational reviews (present vs absent), in which participants engage in detailed discussion with the experimenter, regarding their assessments in seven previous trials before continuing, on probability assessment. A statistically significant main effect of Brier scoring was found, such that Brier based incentivization improved assessment accuracy. The effect of informational review and the interaction effect were not significant. All groups performed significantly better than random and uninformed performance. Outcomes from this study improve our understanding of the validity of online judgments made by operators of unmanned vehicles in strategic settings. It is concluded that non-expert probability assessments carry important information value even in ambiguous settings and even without incentives, and importantly, are further amenable to incentives and training., Author(s): Adam S. Goodie[sup.1] , Matthew K. Meisel[sup.1] , Roi Ceren[sup.2] , Daniel B. Hall[sup.3] , Prashant Doshi[sup.2] Author Affiliations: (1) Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, 30602-3013, Athens, GAUSA [...]

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00564.x Byline: Joshua D. Miller (1), W. Keith Campbell (1), Diana L. Young (1), Chad E. Lakey (1), Dennis E. Reidy (1), Amos Zeichner (1), Adam S. Goodie (1) Abstract: ABSTRACT A recent meta-analysis (S. Vazire & D. C. Funder, 2006) suggested that narcissism and impulsivity are related and that impulsivity partially accounts for the relation between narcissism and self-defeating behaviors (SDB). This research examines these hypotheses in two studies and tests a competing hypothesis that Extraversion and Agreeableness account for this relation. In Study 1, we examined the relations among narcissism, impulsivity, and aggression. Both narcissism and impulsivity predicted aggression, but impulsivity did not mediate the narcissism-aggression relation. In Study 2, narcissism was related to a measure of SDB and manifested divergent relations with a range of impulsivity traits from three measures. None of the impulsivity models accounted for the narcissism-SDB relation, although there were unique mediating paths for traits related to sensation and fun seeking. The domains of Extraversion and low Agreeableness successfully mediated the entire narcissism-SDB relation. We address the discrepancy between the current and meta-analytic findings. Author Affiliation: (1)University of Georgia Article note: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Joshua D. Miller, Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-3013. E-mail: jdmiller@uga.edu.

Traditional decision theories emphasize the probabilities and values of possible outcomes, but decisions may also be influenced by perceived control, with control defined as probability alterability. In 3 experiments, participants were offered bets on their own answers to general knowledge questions, bets that are characterized by control. The bets were fair if participants' reported confidence was well calibrated, positively valued if participants were underconfident, but unfavorable when participants were overconfident. Bet acceptance was a steep, linear, increasing function of confidence that is termed paradoxical betting. This pattern was generally contrary to the value of bets (considered either as average outcome or as subjective utility) and was steeper in slope than matched bets on apparently random events in Experiment 3. The author argues that control is a fundamental determinant of decision making that is readily incorporated in some existing models of decision weighting.

The study tests college students in a delayed matching-to-sample technique to know how multiple competitive sources of control influenced choice behavior. The fact that subjects made a base-rate mistake, just like in verbal tests, suggests that it is a broad behavioral pattern not limited to verbnal areas.

Scripts and deception are alternative means, both imperfect, to the goal of simulating all environment that cannot be created readily. Under scripts, participants pretend they are in that environment, while deception convinces participants they are in that environment although they are not. With repeated trials, they ought to be unnecessary. But they are not, which poses challenges to behavioral sciences.

Stanovich & West continue a history of norm-setting that began with deference to reasonable people's opinions, followed by adherence to probability theorems. They return to deference to reasonable people, with aptitude test performance substituting for reasonableness. This allows them to select independently among competing theories, but defines reasoning circularly in terms of aptitude, while aptitude is measured using reasoning.

Domjan et al. continue a consistent trend in Pavlovian conditioning, that of accounting for more behaviors while sacrificing specificity of predictions. Despite the sacrifice, their model provides a valuable framework within which social behavioral research may operate. It may also allow ethologists and evolutionary psychologists to pursue questions about which feed-forward systems should produce which behaviors in social settings.