Are difficult decisions best made after a momentary diversion of thought? Previous research addressing this important question has yielded dozens of experiments in which participants were asked to choose the best of several options (e.g., cars or apartments) either after conscious deliberation, or after a momentary diversion of thought induced by an unrelated task. The results of these studies were mixed. Some found that participants who had first performed the unrelated task were more likely to choose the best option, whereas others found no evidence for this so-called unconscious thought advantage (UTA). The current study examined two accounts of this inconsistency in previous findings. According to the reliability account, the UTA does not exist and previous reports of this effect concern nothing but spurious effects obtained with an unreliable paradigm. In contrast, the moderator account proposes that the UTA is a real effect that occurs only when certain conditions are met in the choice task. To test these accounts, we conducted a meta-analysis and a large-scale replication study (N = 399) that met the conditions deemed optimal for replicating the UTA. Consistent with the reliability account, the large-scale replication study yielded no evidence for the UTA, and the meta-analysis showed that previous reports of the UTA were confined to underpowered studies that used relatively small sample sizes. Furthermore, the results of the large-scale study also dispelled the recent suggestion that the UTA might be gender-specific. Accordingly, we conclude that there exists no reliable support for the claim that a momentary diversion of thought leads to better decision making than a period of deliberation.

The less-is-more effect predicts that people can be more accurate making paired-comparison decisions when they have less knowledge, in the sense that they do not recognize all of the items in the decision domain. The traditional theoretical explanation is that decisions based on recognizing one alternative but not the other can be more accurate than decisions based on partial knowledge of both alternatives. I present new data that directly test for the less-is-more effect, coming from a task in which participants judge which of two cities is larger and indicate whether they recognize each city. A group-level analysis of these data provides evidence in favor of the less-is-more effect: there is strong evidence people make decisions consistent with recognition, and that these decisions are more accurate than those based on knowledge. An individual-level analysis of the same data, however, provides evidence inconsistent with a simple interpretation of the less-is-more effect: there is no evidence for an inverse-U-shaped relationship between accuracy and recognition, and especially no evidence that individuals who recognize a moderate number of cities outperform individuals who recognize many cities. I suggest a reconciliation of these contrasting findings, based on the systematic change of the accuracy of recognition-based decisions with the underlying recognition rate. In particular, the data show that people who recognize almost none or almost all cities make more accurate decisions by applying the recognition heuristic, when compared to the accuracy achieved by people with intermediate recognition rates. The implications of these findings for precisely defining and understanding the less-is-more effect are discussed, as are the constraints our data potentially place on models of the learning and decision-making processes involved. Keywords: recognition heuristic, less-is-more effect.

Positive spreading of ratings or rankings in the classical free-choice paradigm is commonly taken to indicate choice-induced change in preferences and has motivated influential theories as cognitive dissonance theory and self-perception theory. Chen and Risen [2010] argued by means of a mathematical proof that positive spreading is merely a statistical consequence of a flawed design. However, positive spreading has also been observed in blind choice and other designs where the alleged flaw should be absent. We show that the result in Chen and Risen [2010] is mathematically incorrect, although it can be recovered in a particular case. Specifically, we present a formal model of decision making that satisfies all assumptions in that article but implies that spreading need not be positive in the absence of choice-induced preference change. Hence, although the free-choice paradigm is flawed, the present research shows that reasonable models of human behavior need not predict consistent positive spreading. As a consequence, taken as a whole, previous experimental results remain informative.

There is a worldwide and increasing shortage of potable fresh water. Modern water reclamation technologies can alleviate much of the problem by converting wastewater directly into drinking water, but there is public resistance to these approaches that has its basis largely in psychology. A psychological problem is encapsulated in the saying of those opposing recycled water: “toilet to tap.” We report the results of two surveys, one on a sample of over 2,000 Americans from five metropolitan areas and the second on a smaller sample of American undergraduates, both assessing attitudes to water and water purification. Approximately 13% of our adult American sample definitely refuses to try recycled water, while 49% are willing to try it, with 38% uncertain. Both disgust and contamination sensitivity predict resistance to consumption of recycled water. For a minority of individuals, no overt treatment of wastewater will make it acceptable for drinking (“spiritual contagion”), even if the resultant water is purer than drinking or bottled water. Tap water is reliably rated as significantly more desirable than wastewater that has undergone substantially greater purification than occurs with normal tap water. Framing and contagion are two basic psychological processes that influence recycled water rejection.

In four experiments we showed that investors are not only interested in maximizing returns but have non-financial goals, too. We considered what drives the decision to invest ethically and the impact this strategy has on people’s evaluation of investment performance. In Study 1, participants who chose a moral portfolio (over an immoral one) reported being less interested in maximizing their gains and more interested in being true to their moral values. These participants also reported feeling lower disappointment upon learning that a different decision could have yield a better outcome. In Studies 2 and 3, we replicated these findings when investors decided not to invest in immoral assets, rather than when they choose to invest morally. In Study 4, we found similar results using the same industrial sector in both the moral and the immoral conditions and providing participants with information about the expected return of the portfolio they were presented with. These findings lend empirical support to the conclusion that investors have both utilitarian (financial) goals and expressive (non-financial) ones and show how non-financial motivations can influence the reaction to unsatisfactory investment performance.

Can numerical anchors influence people’s judgments of their own recent behavior? We investigate this question in a series of six studies. In Study 1, subjects’ judgments of how many anagrams they were given assimilated to numerical anchors. Subjects’ judgments of how many math problems they correctly solved and how many stairs they had just walked up were also influenced by numerical anchors (Studies 2A and 3A), and this occurred even when the anchors were extreme and nonsensical (Studies 2B and 3B). Thus, our first five studies showed that anchors can affect people’s judgments of their own recent behavior. Finally, in Study 4, we tested the hypothesis that self-knowledge, despite not eliminating anchoring effects, does still attenuate anchoring. However, we found no evidence that self-knowledge reduced anchoring: subjects’ judgments of their own recent behavior and subjects’ judgments of other people’s recent behavior were equally influenced by anchors. We discuss implications of these findings for research on domain knowledge and anchoring, as well as for research on the malleability of memory.

Proper scoring rules are scoring methods that incentivize honest reporting of subjective probabilities, where an agent strictly maximizes his expected score by reporting his true belief. The implicit assumption behind proper scoring rules is that agents are risk neutral. Such an assumption is often unrealistic when agents are human beings. Modern theories of choice under uncertainty based on rank-dependent utilities assert that human beings weight nonlinear utilities using decision weights, which are differences between weighting functions applied to cumulative probabilities.

In this paper, I investigate the reporting behavior of an agent with a rank-dependent utility when he is rewarded using a proper scoring rule tailored to his utility function. I show that such an agent misreports his true belief by reporting a vector of decision weights. My findings thus highlight the risk of utilizing proper scoring rules without prior knowledge about all the components that drive an agent’s attitude towards uncertainty. On the positive side, I discuss how tailored proper scoring rules can effectively elicit weighting functions. Moreover, I show how to obtain an agent’s true belief from his misreported belief once the weighting functions are known.

Whether it pertains to the foods to buy when one is on a diet, the items to take along to the beach on one’s day off or (perish the thought) the belongings to save from one’s burning house, choice is ubiquitous. We aim to determine from choices the criteria individuals use when they select objects from among a set of candidates. In order to do so we employ a mixture IRT (item-response theory) model that capitalizes on the insights that objects are chosen more often the better they meet the choice criteria and that the use of different criteria is reflected in inter-individual selection differences. The model is found to account for the inter-individual selection differences for 10 ad hoc and goal-derived categories. Its parameters can be related to selection criteria that are frequently thought of in the context of these categories. These results suggest that mixture IRT models allow one to infer from mere choice behavior the criteria individuals used to select/discard objects. Potential applications of mixture IRT models in other judgment and decision making contexts are discussed.

This study investigates the psychometric characteristics of the General Decision-Making Scale (GDMS) on a sample of Slovak high-school and university students. Secondly, it addresses the relationship between decision-making styles and a) decision making competencies and b) mental health as validity criteria. Participants were 427 Slovak high school and university students (64.6% females). The GDMS showed a good internal consistency and its original factor structure was confirmed. Low but significant relationships between the decision-making styles were found. Two decision-making styles served as significant predictors of the general decision-making competency (avoidant and spontaneous) and another two were found to predict mental health. The intuitive decision-making style was a protective factor and the avoidant style was a risk factor.