Multiple numeric competencies in judgment and decision-making processes

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellen Peters ◽  
Par Bjalkebring
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lewend Mayiwar ◽  
Fredrik Björklund

A growing line of research has shown that individuals can regulate emotional biases in risky judgment and decision-making processes through cognitive reappraisal. In the present study, we focus on a specific tactic of reappraisal known as distancing. Drawing on appraisal theories of emotion and the emotion regulation literature, we examine how distancing moderates the relationship between fear and risk taking and anger and risk taking. In three pre-registered studies (Ntotal = 1,483), participants completed various risky judgment and decision-making tasks. Replicating previous results, Study 1 revealed a negative relationship between fear and risk taking and a positive relationship between anger and risk taking at low levels of distancing. Study 2 replicated the interaction between fear and distancing but found no interaction between anger and distancing. Interestingly, at high levels of distancing, we observed a reversal of the relationship between fear and risk taking in both Study 1 and 2. Study 3 manipulated emotion and distancing by asking participants to reflect on current fear-related and anger-related stressors from an immersed or distanced perspective. Study 3 found no main effect of emotion nor any evidence of a moderating role of distancing. However, exploratory analysis revealed a main effect of distancing on optimistic risk estimation, which was mediated by a reduction in self-reported fear. Overall, the findings suggest that distancing can help regulate the influence of incidental fear on risk taking and risk estimation. We discuss implications and suggestions for future research.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lewend Mayiwar ◽  
Fredrik Björklund

A growing line of research has shown that individuals can regulate emotional biases in risky judgment and decision-making processes through cognitive reappraisal. In the present study, we focus on a specific tactic of reappraisal known as distancing. Drawing on appraisal theories of emotion and the emotion regulation literature, we examine how distancing moderates the relationship between fear and risk taking and anger and risk taking. In three pre-registered studies (Ntotal = 1,483), participants completed various risky judgment and decision-making tasks. Replicating previous results, Study 1 revealed a negative relationship between fear and risk taking and a positive relationship between anger and risk taking at low levels of distancing. Study 2 replicated the interaction between fear and distancing but found no interaction between anger and distancing. Interestingly, at high levels of distancing, we observed a reversal of the relationship between fear and risk taking in both Study 1 and 2. Study 3 manipulated emotion and distancing by asking participants to reflect on current fear-related and anger-related stressors from an immersed or distanced perspective. Study 3 found no main effect of emotion nor any evidence of a moderating role of distancing. However, exploratory analysis revealed a main effect of distancing on optimistic risk estimation, which was mediated by a reduction in self-reported fear. Overall, the findings suggest that distancing can help regulate the influence of incidental fear on risk taking and risk estimation. We discuss implications and suggestions for future research.


Author(s):  
Mary E Marshall

This study examines the effect of the reviewer role on tax professionals' advocacy bias. Prior research establishes the prevalence of advocacy bias and focuses on whether reviewers can detect preparers' advocacy bias; however, this study examines whether the reviewer role influences tax professionals' judgment and decision-making processes. In an experiment randomly assigning 75 tax professionals to the reviewer and preparer roles, I find professionals who occupy the reviewer role report similar advocacy attitudes to preparers but are significantly less likely to exhibit advocacy bias than preparers. Reviewers also employ a more consistent decision process than those in a preparer role. Results highlight the reviewer role as a moderator of advocacy bias, demonstrating the importance of the reviewer role for firms and clients. Understanding the effects of review responsibilities on professionals at all levels is increasingly important as firms leverage emerging technology to complete tasks traditionally assigned to less experienced professionals.


2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 303-317 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Martindale ◽  
Dave Collins

The field of applied sport psychology has recognized the growing consensus that professional autonomy and discretion brings with it the need to train, regulate, and evaluate practice (Evetts, 2001). However, research into how practitioners’ professional judgment is formed and the decision-making processes involved has not received concurrent attention. This paper illustrates some of the possible outcomes and implications for applied sport psychologists from consideration of Professional Judgment and Decision Making (PJDM) research in other fields such as medicine and teaching and in parallel disciplines such as clinical and counseling psychology. Investigation into the nature of decision content and how the crucial “intention for impact” (Hill, 1992) is formulated carries implications for the assessment, reflective practice, and professional development and training of applied sport psychologists. Future directions in PJDM research are suggested and a call is made for practitioners to be open to involvement in research of this nature.


2013 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 302-302
Author(s):  
Hamid R. Noori ◽  
Rainer Spanagel

AbstractQuantum theory is a powerful framework for probabilistic modeling of cognition. Strong empirical evidence suggests the context- and order-dependent representation of human judgment and decision-making processes, which falls beyond the scope of classical Bayesian probability theories. However, considering behavior as the output of underlying neurobiological processes, a fundamental question remains unanswered: Is cognition a probabilistic process at all?


2004 ◽  
Vol 79 (2) ◽  
pp. 497-517 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jay S. Rich

Reviewers use expectations about the client and preparer to help form perceptions of the probability of preparer error and relative accountability to the client and financial statement users (Gibbins and Trotman 2002; Rich et al. 1997b). Experimental findings suggest these perceptions interact to affect reviewers' agreement with the preparers' work and decisions about the amount of preparer follow-up work required. Further, the nature of reviewer cognition, as measured by the relative proportion of critical and supportive reviewer elaboration explains a significant portion of the effect of these perceptions on reviewer judgment and decisions. Elaboration is a stage of reviewers' judgment and decision-making processes in which the reviewer assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the preparer's work (Petty and Cacioppo 1986; Rich et al. 1997b; Lerner and Tetlock 1999). Although the extent of reviewer elaboration is also affected by expectations about the client and the preparer, extent of elaboration does not explain a significant portion of the effect on reviewer judgment. These findings increase our understanding of how and why expectations of the client and preparer interact to affect reviewer judgments and decisions.


Author(s):  
Richard P. Larrick ◽  
M. Asher Lawson

The field of judgment and decision making (JDM) arose in psychology to test the rational assumptions posed in other fields such as economics and statistics. This has led to three major contributions of the field. First, to the extent that people systematically deviate from rational models, their decisions are less than optimal. This has consequences for both business practice and for assumptions in many professional fields, such as finance, medicine, and law. Second, the deviation from rational models has led JDM researchers to identify categories of psychological processes that do guide decision making. These include associationistic memory processes, psychophysical processes, emotional processes, and learning. Third, building on the first two contributions, the field of JDM has merged rational and psychological perspectives to explore ways to improve decision making. These methods include a variety of interventions known as nudges, choice architecture, debiasing, and the use of external aids such as algorithms and the wisdom of crowds. The three contributions of JDM help researchers in a number of fields analyze problems and design helpful solutions. Workplace examples include designing better processes for hiring and evaluation, goal setting, and employee retirement savings planning.


Author(s):  
Jennifer M. Roche ◽  
Arkady Zgonnikov ◽  
Laura M. Morett

Purpose The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the social and cognitive underpinnings of miscommunication during an interactive listening task. Method An eye and computer mouse–tracking visual-world paradigm was used to investigate how a listener's cognitive effort (local and global) and decision-making processes were affected by a speaker's use of ambiguity that led to a miscommunication. Results Experiments 1 and 2 found that an environmental cue that made a miscommunication more or less salient impacted listener language processing effort (eye-tracking). Experiment 2 also indicated that listeners may develop different processing heuristics dependent upon the speaker's use of ambiguity that led to a miscommunication, exerting a significant impact on cognition and decision making. We also found that perspective-taking effort and decision-making complexity metrics (computer mouse tracking) predict language processing effort, indicating that instances of miscommunication produced cognitive consequences of indecision, thinking, and cognitive pull. Conclusion Together, these results indicate that listeners behave both reciprocally and adaptively when miscommunications occur, but the way they respond is largely dependent upon the type of ambiguity and how often it is produced by the speaker.


2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erinn Finke ◽  
Kathryn Drager ◽  
Elizabeth C. Serpentine

Purpose The purpose of this investigation was to understand the decision-making processes used by parents of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) related to communication-based interventions. Method Qualitative interview methodology was used. Data were gathered through interviews. Each parent had a child with ASD who was at least four-years-old; lived with their child with ASD; had a child with ASD without functional speech for communication; and used at least two different communication interventions. Results Parents considered several sources of information for learning about interventions and provided various reasons to initiate and discontinue a communication intervention. Parents also discussed challenges introduced once opinions of the school individualized education program (IEP) team had to be considered. Conclusions Parents of children with ASD primarily use individual decision-making processes to select interventions. This discrepancy speaks to the need for parents and professionals to share a common “language” about interventions and the decision-making process.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document