Preprint

The use of alternative reasons in probabilistic judgment

This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [What does this mean?].

Author(s) / Creator(s)

Baron, Jonathan
Burcu Gürçay-Morris

Abstract / Description

We examine a behavioral measure of actively open-minded thinking (AOT), based on generation of alternative reasons or contradicting evidence. We also developed and tested a short online module to train people in actively open-minded thinking, based on the same idea. In three studies reported here, subjects made probabilistic judgments in three-choice almanac questions. Subjects were overconfident in their probability judgments, but overconfidence was lower (in two studies) in subjects who scored higher on a measure of AOT beliefs, and on trials when the behavioral measure was higher. Study 2 showed that forcing subjects to think of alternative reasons reduced overconfidence. Study 3 tested the effectiveness of new online AOT training modules we designed for adults, in a pre-test/post-test design. The training module, relative to a control condition, increased both the behavioral and belief-based measures of AOT and reduced overconfidence. Otherwise, the behavioral and belief-based AOT measures did not correlate with each other.

Persistent Identifier

Date of first publication

2023-01-09

Publisher

PsychArchives

Citation

  • Author(s) / Creator(s)
    Baron, Jonathan
  • Author(s) / Creator(s)
    Burcu Gürçay-Morris
  • PsychArchives acquisition timestamp
    2023-01-09T08:45:14Z
  • Made available on
    2023-01-09T08:45:14Z
  • Date of first publication
    2023-01-09
  • Abstract / Description
    We examine a behavioral measure of actively open-minded thinking (AOT), based on generation of alternative reasons or contradicting evidence. We also developed and tested a short online module to train people in actively open-minded thinking, based on the same idea. In three studies reported here, subjects made probabilistic judgments in three-choice almanac questions. Subjects were overconfident in their probability judgments, but overconfidence was lower (in two studies) in subjects who scored higher on a measure of AOT beliefs, and on trials when the behavioral measure was higher. Study 2 showed that forcing subjects to think of alternative reasons reduced overconfidence. Study 3 tested the effectiveness of new online AOT training modules we designed for adults, in a pre-test/post-test design. The training module, relative to a control condition, increased both the behavioral and belief-based measures of AOT and reduced overconfidence. Otherwise, the behavioral and belief-based AOT measures did not correlate with each other.
    en
  • Publication status
    other
    en
  • Review status
    notReviewed
    en
  • Persistent Identifier
    https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12034/7887
  • Persistent Identifier
    https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.12346
  • Language of content
    eng
  • Publisher
    PsychArchives
    en
  • Dewey Decimal Classification number(s)
    150
  • Title
    The use of alternative reasons in probabilistic judgment
    en
  • DRO type
    preprint
    en