Zertifikat abrufen
Geben Sie die Nummer des Zertifikats ein, um das Zertifikat anzuzeigen.
Alternativ können Sie die Nummer auch direkt wie im folgenden Beispiel in der Adresszeile ausführen:
https://gfew.de/ethik/uK1jfT94Wq
Suchergebnis
Titel des Experiments
The effect of instruction-induced intuitive or deliberate decision modes on choice behavior, modeled by a parallel constraint satisfaction model
Autoren
Forst, Sarah; Glöckner, Andreas; Jekel, Marc
Kurzbeschreibung des Experiments
Influential dual-process accounts of decision-making distinguish between fast, unconscious, high-capacity intuition and slow, conscious, capacity-limited deliberation (for a review, see Evans, 2008). The parallel constraint satisfaction model of decision-making (PCS-DM, Glöckner & Betsch, 2008) is a computational model to describe intuition that can account for choices, decision time, and confidence in probabilistic inference tasks (Glöckner, 2006; Glöckner et al., 2014). However, evidence for the PCS-DM mainly comes from studies instructing the participants to decide as well and as quickly as possible in tasks presented repeatedly up to ten times (e.g. Glöckner et al., 2014), making its generalizability to deliberate decisions unclear. The integrated processes view represented by the PCS-DM assumes that deliberate processes intervene to modulate the automatic process of consistency maximization, which by default runs independently of the decision mode (Glöckner & Betsch, 2008; Horstmann et al., 2009). In contrast, theories that follow the distinct processes assumption postulate a higher degree of distinctiveness and conflict between intuition and deliberation (Sloman, 1996, 2002).
In this study, we instruct the participants to adopt a more intuitive or deliberate decision mode in a probabilistic inference task to investigate the ability of the PCS-DM to account for choices, decision time, and confidence data in both decision modes. Using a multiple-measure maximum likelihood strategy classification method (Glöckner, 2009; Jekel et al., 2010), we classify participants according to their decision strategies to compare the distribution of PCS-DM (PCS_fitted, PCS_P=1.9) and multi-strategy account strategies (TTB, WADDcorr, EQW) between the two conditions. Finally, we compare performance, decision time, confidence ratings, and the sensitivity parameter P, representing subjective differences in the scaling of and sensitivity to cue validities, between the two modes.
Downloads
Institutional Review Board Certificate (English)
