doi.org
Patterns between evidence seeking behaviors, reasoning, and cognitive reflection: A supervised clustering approach
In the face of risk, decision-making can be driven by styles of evidence gathering and information processing. When studying how people navigate the complex landscapes of evidence, researchers face the analytical problem of an exponentially growing number of distinct evidence gathering styles, as the number of pieces of information increases. The existing solution is to chunk information into a manageable number of pre-defined categories. In this work, we propose to meet this analytical challenge with a two-pronged strategy. First, our observational setting offers more fine-grained pieces of evidence but masks the content of evidence behind a query (e.g., ’what does so-and-so say?’) to ensure that people only access what they deem as potentially relevant. Second, applying supervised clustering based on the SHapley Additive exPlanation (SHAP) methodology allows us to relate evidence from gathered patterns to final decision while significantly relaxing theoretical delineations of evidence types that would otherwise make analysis intractable. We argue that this two-pronged strategy approximately integrates the pathway from evidence seeking to information processing and decision-making. We applied this strategy to demonstrate the fruitfulness of bridging work on evidence gathering and information processing. For example, one mental shortcut (heuristic) to arrive at decisions when assessing a causal claim using a 2×2 contingency table is the ‘base rate neglect heuristic’ (considering only the treatment group, comparing the number of positive outcomes to the number of negative outcomes). While base rate neglect is a well-established heuristic in information processing research, there is not yet a clear equivalent picture regarding evidence gathering. We develop this picture by considering the assessment of the effectiveness of a hypothetical nasal spray based on queries that span gathering/processing evidence categories. Using a demographically diverse online sample collected during August 2024 in the United States, we establish that the base rate neglect heuristic from information processing research is also a heuristic when it comes to gathering first-order data. For example, we find that higher performance on the cognitive reflection test predicts selection of the full data of a 2×2 contingency table. But, the latter group is nevertheless similar to base rate neglecters in who they consider to be relevant outside sources (i.e., they have roughly the same “deference” behavior). So while evidential categories in information seeking research are well suited to track differences in deference behaviors, they are blind to the difference between these two groups. These findings are additionally important for designing tailored health communication so as to avoid fallacious inferences.
!["the paranormal beliefs measure and the religiosity measure tended to steal variance from each other in various regression and path models. We thus developed separate models involving each (the model involving paranormal beliefs is presented in Figure 3, and that involving religiosity is presented in Figure 4)."
In Figure 3, "The ability to discriminate true from false conspiracies has a positive independent relationship with AOT, and negative independent relationships with [belief in hidden causal forces or] HCFS, Paranormal Beliefs, and the Government Credulity scale."
In Figure 4, "The ability to discriminate true from false conspiracies has a positive independent relationship with AOT, and negative independent relationships with HCFS, Religiosity, and the Government Credulity scale that were all very similar to the coefficients observed in Figure 3."](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:jf4udtyuylqocyyrqdwqoxuf/bafkreia4b7ry3yeqcgfwn46pe4zgttughkr2zbblm4rmgyp5tk5w5eydj4)
!["Table 2 presents the correlations of the predictor variables with the six variables measuring partisan/ideological conspiracy belief. As is apparent, the ideology variable has substantial correlations (although in different directions) with all six of the partisan/ideological conspiracy variables. Some variables, such as the Paranormal Belief [and Religiosity] scale[s], had fairly uniform positive relationships with conspiracy beliefs across the ideological spectrum."](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:jf4udtyuylqocyyrqdwqoxuf/bafkreialygtehuw5l33x7dvnhqhl76hvhxxylyo4swq4rscazhjjj5resq)
![Figure 3. Overview of the three-part experimental study process
[Pre-evaluation → Chatbot (appointment)→ In-person participation → "No Studies Today" → Either (1) Chatbot at fault or (2) No fault attribution → Feedback survey → Trust measured → Behavior measured → Debriefing]
4.1.5 Scoring
The attitude toward technology was calculated by summing up items related to each of the four subscales. [For] the 9-item scale [of] attitude[s] toward technology, a sum score ...was computed ...⍺ = 0.87.
...
Trusting behavior was measured by participants selecting their method of choice to make another appointment, whether using the chatbot or not. This resulted in a binary choice variable, holding the values 1 for “using chatbot” and 0 for “not using chatbot”.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:jf4udtyuylqocyyrqdwqoxuf/bafkreihou6mzp3zzzuc7h7327ujooamt57z63tsulddmgjplfj6fw6ghie)
![Chatbot "fault attribution [did] not hav[e] a significant impact on trusting behavior (χ²(20, N = 30) = 19.09, p = .52)."
"...trusting behavior [did] not [correlated with self-reported] trust (β = -.60, SE = .37, t(27) = -1.61, p = .12)."](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:jf4udtyuylqocyyrqdwqoxuf/bafkreiakcufqgr27l64ryvtfyc3iboozuasgxilc5khjpvfwn5jtqd7k3i)
!["...the predictive power of [general cognitive ability or GCA] is significantly attenuated as [cognitive reflection or CR] increases. As shown in Figure 1, the relationship between GCA and job performance [or JP] was positive and statistically significant across both tested levels, but the magnitude of the effect differed substantially. For individuals with lower CR scores (-1 SD), GCA was a very strong and significant predictor of JP (B = 0.16, SE = 0.03, t = 5.77, p < .001). This confirms that for individuals with lower CR raw GCA is a critical driver of JP. Conversely, for individuals high in CR (SD +1), the relationship was notably attenuated, with the slope coefficient reduced by nearly half (B = 0.08, SE = 0.03, t = 3.12, p = .002). While still significant, GCA becomes a much less critical predictor of JP when high levels of CR are present."](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:jf4udtyuylqocyyrqdwqoxuf/bafkreicdzzdx5bhaw5oequrashfgaj7dkstoduy6paz4vqak2e2qvpqixa)
![Pragmatism, Dual-Process Theory, and the Study of Reflective Cognition
Gordon Brett
This article advances dual-process theory (DPT) by developing a pragmatist framework for the study of reflective cognition. Although dual-process models were introduced to sociology via Bourdieusian practice theory, Bourdieusian DPT has proven inadequate for theorising reflective cognition and action, with sociologists looking to pragmatism as an alternative. To support these efforts, I provide a synthetic, elemental account of the pragmatist theory of reflection, delineating reflective cognition's defining characteristics, core components, its relationship with non-reflective cognition, and its interindividual variation. I then outline the merits of the pragmatist theory of reflection for dual-process research, arguing that it not only addresses the major limitations of Bourdieusian DPT but that it has broad interdisciplinary support [and] provides advantages [to both science and scholarship].](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:jf4udtyuylqocyyrqdwqoxuf/bafkreidbg2zk2dxzppdvslpkshddnehb3fzettrzuxfdy53tbkgzch67ry)
![Moral Surgery: Perspective and Physicality Impact Identity?
If someone changes morally, are they the ‘same’ person? It depends!
Nick Byrd & Aaron Camacho
Case: “[you/Alex] are extremely [kind/cruel]; [you/Alex] really enjoy[s] [helping/harming] people. [you/Alex have/has] had steady jobs and stable relationships. However, later in the year something changed. In some ways [you/Alex] after the change [are/is] remarkably different from [you/Alex] before the change. [You/Alex] before the change [were/was] extremely [kind/cruel] and enjoyed [helping/harming] people, but [you/Alex] after the change [are/is] now extremely [cruel/kind]; [you/Alex] even enjoy[s] [harming/helping] people.
...[you/Alex] received a full neurological examination, revealing a large egg-sized tumor in [you/Alex’s] brain. The doctors removed the brain tumor and [you/Alex] promptly recovered from surgery. However, after the surgery, something changed. In some ways [you/Alex] after the surgery [are/is] remarkably..."](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:jf4udtyuylqocyyrqdwqoxuf/bafkreihfbswadvalidk2tr2gzuocftub2kz3jwx52ajk7tm7qdzo2ahpk4)
