Search

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 120(23), e2215572120 (2023). doi:10.1073/pnas.2215572120, Published by National Acad. of Sciences, Washington, DC

An experiment examining the relation between capacity and metacognitive processes in reasoning

Study 1 to be conducted in S23 exploring whether explanation affects generation of queries regarding how well a person understands a phenomenon.

We will explore how a person’s proneness to experience shame and their in-the-moment experience of shame influences their tendency to exhibit the sunk cost bias. The sunk cost bias occurs when people continue a failing endeavour simply because they have previously invested time, money, or effort. As these costs cannot be recovered (they are "sunk costs"), they should not affect future decisions. Yet, people are often motivated by sunk costs to continue in these circumstances, even when continuing would offer no apparent benefit. In these types of situations, we suggest that one reason why people tend to justify future actions with past unrecoverable costs is that they feel stopping will be acknowledging a failure and would likely lead the person to experience shame. To avoid this experience of shame, we think that individuals will try to withdraw from the possible situation that would cause them to experience it. This might lead to continuing with a failing endeavour despite it leading to no ostensible benefit (other than perhaps the benefit of avoiding shame in the present moment). In our work, we will examine the decision-making of individuals in sunk cost scenarios and assess the extent to which they feel shame during these scenarios. We will also have them complete measures to assess how prone they are to experience shame in everyday life and their in-the-moment experience of shame. Ultimately, we hope to better understand a widespread bias in human decision-making — the sunk cost bias.

Examining how metaphor used to describe COVID-19 vaccine process (development, approval, etc.) might influence relevant attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours.

Aiming to replicate effects of framing of COVID-19 vaccine development/distribution/approval (etc.) as a race vs. effort. Biggest study design changes are 1) rewording messages somewhat (e.g., trying to further emphasize speed/strength distinctions), 3) adding additional materials potentially impacted by metaphor (e.g., preference for prioritization of U.S. vs. global concerns in vaccine distribution), 4) adding 'prescriptive' questions as well as 'descriptive' questions, 5) removing control condition, and 6) removing non-essential covariate (Urbanicity)

Aiming to replicate effects of framing of COVID-19 vaccine development/distribution/approval (etc.) as a race vs. effort. Biggest study design changes are 1) using a no-message control condition to ensure a neutral control, rather than the "issue"-focused (attempted neutral) wording used previously, 2) rewording messages somewhat (e.g., emphasizing distribution of vaccines given that vaccine development has progressed), 3) adding additional materials potentially impacted by metaphor (e.g., imagined regret after vaccinating)

Exploring whether breadth effect of IOED reduction in understanding for an item that was not explained) will extend to and/or from Procedures -- a kind of knowledge generally immune to the IOED in the first place.

The purpose of the current research is to study how differences in actively open-minded thinking styles about evidence (AOT-E) relate to COVID-19 misinformation discernment in a nationally representative longitudinal survey of Canadians. This research is the third of three planned "slices" each assessing a different question using the large longitudinal survey data

While there is a theoretical debate regarding the relationship between legality and morality (i.e., Sunstein 1996, Cooter 1998, 2000), minimal empirical work has been done to examine how lay people view the relation between these two notions (Blaufus et al., 2016). The purpose of this project is to examine this question empirically, and extend on previous scholarship with the support of empirical data. This study aims to investigate whether the form of government creating laws (i.e., totalitarian vs democratic) can influence "wrongness" judgements and moral character judgements of the people navigating these laws, and their actions.

Preregistration for study further examining the effects of the welfare maximization argument.

Examining how reflecting on meaningless information can enhance meaning

While there is a theoretical debate regarding the relationship between legality and morality (i.e., Sunstein 1996, Cooter 1998, 2000), minimal empirical work has been done to examine how lay people view the relation between these two notions (Blaufus et al., 2016). The purpose of this project is to examine this question empirically, and extend on previous scholarship with the support of empirical data. This study aims to investigate whether the intentionality of breaking a law can influence "wrongness" judgements of that act, as well as moral character judgements of the person enacting it.

Aiming to mitigate previously-found message inconsistency effects (e.g., reduced trust & expertise) via an intervention describing the nature of change in science and the role of public health authorities

Sunk cost and withdrawal aversion.

Investigating the effects of sunk costs in various moral judgments

Examining effects of COVID-19 message (in)consistency on trust and behaviour (e..g, vaccination intention). Also examining relation between metaphor used for vaccine development/approval (race vs. effort measures) and vaccination intention.

The present work (N = 1,906 U.S. residents) investigates the extent to which peoples’ evaluations of actions can be biased by the strategic use of euphemistic (agreeable) and dysphemistic (disagreeable) terms. We find that participants’ evaluations of actions are made more favorable by replacing a disagreeable term (e.g., torture) with a semantically related agreeable term (e.g., enhanced interrogation) in an act’s description. Notably, the influence of agreeable and disagreeable terms was reduced (but not eliminated) when making actions less ambiguous by providing participants with a detailed description of each action. Despite their influence, participants judged both agreeable and disagreeable action descriptions as largely truthful and distinct from lies, and judged agents using such descriptions as more trustworthy and moral than liars. Overall, the results of the current study suggest that a strategic speaker can, through the careful use of language, sway the opinions of others in a preferred direction while avoiding many of the reputational costs associated with less subtle forms of linguistic manipulation (e.g., lying). Like the much-studied phenomenon of “fake news,” manipulative language can serve as a tool for misleading the public, doing so not with falsehoods but rather the strategic use of language.

Follow-up, aiming to strengthen effects of inconsistency on trust etc. and show moderation by forewarning

Do people want a big piece of a small pie, or a small piece of a huge pie? Societies differ based on how equally wealth may be distributed over population categories. Rhetoric takes advantage of this with one often cited example being that "1% of the population control X% of a society's wealth". This is often used to compare between societies, for example, one society may have it so that the top 1% of the population controls 45% of the wealth, while in another, the top 1% of the population may control 22%. What these simple comparisons miss however is the total wealth available in both societies. If both countries were equally wealthy overall, one may prefer to the live in the second, more equal society. However, if the more unequal society had an economy 200 times the size of the more equal one, a person might be better off accepting a smaller piece of that much larger pie. We are looking to introduce total economy size as a variable people may use to evaluate which societies they judge to be most desirable.

The purpose of the current research is to study how differences in actively open-minded thinking style about evidence (AOT-E) relate to knowledge of COVID-19 in a nationally representative longitudinal survey of Canadians. This research is the first of three planned "slices" each assessing a different question using the large longitudinal survey data

An initial study investigating the effects of feedback on attention during syllogistic reasoning.

This is the first study in line of research for Receptivity to Expert vs. Pseudo-Expert Opinion. This is connected to SONA for Spring 2021 at the University of Waterloo.

While there is a theoretical debate regarding the relationship between legality and morality (i.e., Sunstein 1996, Cooter 1998, 2000), minimal empirical work has been done to examine how lay people view the relation between these two notions (Blaufus et al., 2016). The purpose of this project is to examine this question empirically, and extend on previous scholarship with the support of empirical data. This study aims to investigate whether the legal status of an act (i.e., illegal vs. not illegal) can influence "wrongness" judgements of that act, as well as moral character judgements of the person enacting it.

Do people want a big piece of a small pie, or a small piece of a huge pie? Societies differ based on how equally wealth may be distributed over population categories. Rhetoric takes advantage of this with one often cited example being that "1% of the population control X% of a society's wealth". This is often used to compare between societies, for example, one society may have it so that the top 1% of the population controls 45% of the wealth, while in another, the top 1% of the population may control 22%. What these simple comparisons miss however is the total wealth available in both societies. If both countries were equally wealthy overall, one may prefer to the live in the second, more equal society. However, if the more unequal society had an economy 200 times the size of the more equal one, a person might be better off accepting a smaller piece of that much larger pie. We are looking to introduce total economy size as a variable people may use to evaluate which societies they judge to be most desirable.

The purpose of the current research is to study how differences in actively open-minded thinking style about evidence (AOT-E) relate to COVID-19 misinformation discernment in a nationally representative longitudinal survey of Canadians. This research is the first of three planned "slices" each assessing a different question using the large longitudinal survey data