The Impact of Psychological Distance on Judging Satisfaction with Nuclear Energy Policy via Knowledge Calibration and an Integrated Causal Path Model

This study investigated how, through knowledge calibration and a causal path model, psychological distance can explain the level of satisfaction with nuclear energy policy. The investigation used multiple regression analysis and path analysis to explore relationships among variables. Data from 1056 adults revealed that more knowledge-calibrated individuals have more positive attitudes toward nuclear energy policy. In addition, the psychological distance influences policy satisfaction by mediation of perceived risk of nuclear energy. This study aimed to increase the understanding of the dynamic of satisfaction with and acceptance of nuclear energy policy among stakeholders. Thus, based on the construal level theory, the study addressed the importance of knowledge and psychological distance in explaining variation in satisfaction and acceptance about nuclear policy.

Comparing the measures of consumer knowledge calibration

Purpose Studies on consumer knowledge calibration have used different measures of calibration. The purpose of this paper is to undertake a comparative assessment of important measures. In addition, it seeks to identify the best performing measure. Design/methodology/approach The paper reports on three studies. The first study uses eight survey data sets. The second and third studies use experiments. Findings The study found that the Brier score component measure is most responsive to feedback and is the most suitable measure of knowledge calibration. The results also indicate that researchers should use measures that use item-level confidence judgements, as against an overall confidence judgement. Research limitations/implications By documenting the relationship between the different measures of knowledge calibration, the study enables proper interpretation and accumulation of results of various studies that have used different measures. The study also provides guidance to researchers in psychology and education where this issue has been noted. Practical implications The study provides guidance to managers in knowledge intensive industries, such as finance and insurance, interested in understanding their consumers’ knowledge calibration. Originality/value This is the first study in consumer research that examines this issue.

Avoidance of Miserly Information Processing: Indirect Effects

Chapter 7 discussed four subtests that are direct measures of the avoidance of miserly processing on the CART. Chapter 8 discusses how the CART also contains six other subtests that assess the ability to avoid suboptimal thought patterns that arise indirectly from miserly thinking tendencies. Three of those subtests assess an important component of axiomatic utility theory: the ability to avoid being affected by irrelevant context when decision-making. The three subtests that measure the ability to avoid this tendency are: the Framing subtest, the Anchoring subtest, and the Preference Anomalies subtest. Three other subtests are described in this chapter. The avoidance of myside bias is a fundamental component of performance in most discussions of rational thinking. We used our original version of an Argument Evaluation subtest to measure this component of rational thinking. The ability to avoid overconfidence is measured on the CART by the Knowledge Calibration subtest. Finally, the Rational Temporal Discounting subtest assesses the ability to pass up an immediate reward for a delayed larger one. The history of each subtest is described, as well as a large study of each subtest in which correlations with cognitive ability and thinking dispositions are examined.