Archive for the ‘celebration!’ Category

How do people render self-reports of their willingness to take risks?

Markus Steiner, Florian Seitz, and I have a new paper (just published in Decision) in which we investigate the cognitive processes underlying people’s self-reports of their risk preferences. Specifically, we were interested in the information-integration processes that people may rely on during judgment formation, with a particular focus on the type of evidence people may consider when rendering their self-reports. In doing so, we aimed to contribute to a better understanding of why self-reports typically achieve high degrees of convergent validity and test-retest reliability, thus often outperforming their behavioral counterparts (i.e., monetary lotteries and other lab tasks).

To achieve these goals we employed the process-tracing method of aspect listing, to thus gain “a window into people’s mind” while they render self-reports. Our cognitive modeling analyses illustrated that people are particularly sensitive to the strength of evidence of the information retrieved from memory during judgment formation. Interestingly, people’s self-reported risk preferences and the strength of evidence of the retrieved aspects remained considerable stable in a retest study (i.e., across a one-month interval). Moreover, intraindividual changes in the latter were closely aligned with intraindividual changes in the former – suggesting that a relatively reliable psychological mechanism is at play when people render self-reports.

Beyond our quantitative modeling analyses, the process-tracing method of aspect listing also rendered possible more qualitative insights, such as concerning the sources and contents of the information people retrieved from memory (see the word clouds below). To learn more about all further details on this, please have a look at the paper!

Steiner, M., Seitz, F., & Frey, R. (2021). Through the window of my mind: Mapping information integration and the cognitive representations underlying self-reported risk preference. Decision, 8, 97–122. doi:10.1037/dec0000127 | PDF

First appeared on https://renatofrey.net/blog

New paper in JEP-Gen: Is representative design the key to valid assessments of people’s risk preferences?

A large body of research has documented the relatively poor psychometric properties of behavioral measures of risk taking, such as low convergent validity and poor test–retest reliability. In this project we examined the extent to which these issues may be related to violations of “representative design” – the idea that experimental stimuli should be sampled or designed such that they represent the environments to which measured constructs are supposed to generalize.

To this end, we focused on one of the most prominent behavioral measures of risk taking, the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Our analyses demonstrate that the typical implementation of the BART violates the principle of representative design, and strongly conflicts with the expectations people might have formed from real balloons. We conducted two extensive empirical studies (N = 772 and N = 632), aimed at testing the effects of improved representative designs. Indeed, participants acquired more accurate beliefs about the optimal behavior in the BART due to these task adaptions. Yet strikingly, these improvements proved to be insufficient to enhance the task’s psychometric properties (e.g., convergent validity with other measures of risk preference and related constructs). We conclude that for the development of valid behavioral measurement instruments, our field has to overcome the philosophy of the “repair program” (i.e., fixing existing tasks). Instead, the development of valid task designs may require ecological assessments that identify those real-life behaviors and associated psychological processes that lab tasks are supposed to capture and generalize to.

This is a joint project with Markus Steiner (see picture below), who successfully defended his thesis last week – congratulations, Dr. Steiner!

Steiner, M., & Frey, R. (2021). Representative design in psychological assessment: A case study using the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. doi:10.1037/xge0001036 | PDF

First appeared on https://renatofrey.net/blog

 

CDS is back in business!

The spring semester was tough but CDS is again open for (virtual) business and we had our first CDS Brownbag meeting via Zoom today. It was great to welcome our new MSc students and introduce them to the group!

This semester we will cover topics on data visualization and statistical rethinking in our journal club and already have a number of talks and papers lined up from CDS members. We’ll make our schedule available asap.

I’m looking forward to a productive semester!

Happy Darwin Day

I was in London today and got the chance to celebrate Darwin Day – the commemoration of Charles Darwin’s birthday on Feb 12th – with a visit to the Natural History Museum. 

I learned that after the publication of “On the origins of species”, much to the chagrin of one of Darwin’s detractors, Richard Owen, curator of the Natural History Museum at the time, visitors would ask to see the different types of pigeons that Mr. Darwin had written about! Darwin had experimented with breeding pigeons in his garden to better understand artificial selection and, in the process, gain ammunition for the principles of natural selection that he would later write about. It was nice to learn that the museum eventually responded to popular demand by prominently displaying the pigeons as one of the museums’ “treasures”. 

I also picked up this illustrated biography at the museum gift shop – Darwin’s Notebook – and can strongly recommend it as it covers a great deal of past biographies while using photos, drawings, and text to give a vivid portrait of Darwin and his work.

Defending the Power of Faces

Last Thursday the Social, Economic, and Decision Psychology group was attending (and later celebrating) Matt Keller’s successful defense of his doctoral thesis. In his defense talk, Matt discussed the Refined Reverse Correlation Technique, which he developed during his PhD in Basel. This technique allows researchers to visualize the facial representation of stereotypes (e.g., how does a person that might be ostracized look like?) and therefore investigate the consequences of the conclusions that we all draw from other people’s faces. After providing an in-depth introduction into the theory, the method, and the application, Matt successfully answered all of the questions that his PhD committee raised.

We are very happy to congratulate Matt on his successful defense. Matt did not only complete his PhD on that day and received his well-deserved title, he is now also the owner of a very fancy doctoral hat that has been specifically designed for the important occasion. Excitingly, Matt will stay at the Center for Social Psychology as a post-doctoral researcher, where he will continue to work on his research on face perception and teach students in psychology.

 

Happy 100th birthday, JAP!

JAP

The Journal of Applied Psychology turned 100 this year and is publishing a number of review articles on central themes in applied/organizational psychology that may be interesting to many of us in the Social, Economic, and Decision Psychology area.

For those not familiar with the journal, JAP was founded by Stanley Hall (first president of the America Psychological Association and first to start a formal psych lab in the USA), John Baird, and Ludwig Geissler. According to the journal’s website, JAP covers “empirical and theoretical investigations that enhance understanding of cognitive, motivational, affective, and behavioral psychological phenomena in work and organizational settings, broadly defined”.

As I mentioned before in this blog, there is a long standing tension between — in Hall’s terminology — “pure” and “applied” fields in psychology. Hall, Baird, and Geissler stood, of course, by the “applied” side but hoped to bridge potential gaps to “pure” psychology with JAP. Here’s an excerpt from their Foreword of the first edition from 1917.

“The psychologist finds that the old distinction between pure and applied science is already obscured in his domain; and he is beginning to realize that applied psychology can no longer be relegated to a distinctly inferior plane. (…) (The authors) hope that the JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY (a) may bring together the now widely scattered data in this and other countries; (b) may gather from the various industries and from other practical fields data which shall be of real value for pure psychology; (c) may indicate new applications of psychology to the arts and to the occupations of human life, to which psychologists have hitherto made but little contribution.”

I found these three papers from the upcoming 2017 issue gave interesting historical overviews of the field…

Ployhart, R. E., Schmitt, N., & Tippins, N. T. (2017). Solving the Supreme Problem: 100 Years of Selection and Recruitment at the Journal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1–15. http://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000081

DeNisi, A. S., & Murphy, K. R. (2017). Performance Appraisal and Performance Management: 100 Years of Progress? Journal of Applied Psychology, 1–14. http://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000085

Hofmann, D. A., Burke, M. J., & Zohar, D. (2017). 100 Years of Occupational Safety Research: From Basic Protections and Work Analysis to a Multilevel View of Workplace Safety and Risk. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1–15. http://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000114