Deep Thoughts
Norms Affect Prospective Causal Judgments
Paul Henne et al.
Cognitive Science, January 2021
Abstract:
People more frequently select norm‐violating factors, relative to norm‐conforming ones, as the cause of some outcome. Until recently, this abnormal‐selection effect has been studied using retrospective vignette‐based paradigms. We use a novel set of video stimuli to investigate this effect for prospective causal judgments -- that is, judgments about the cause of some future outcome. Four experiments show that people more frequently select norm‐violating factors, relative to norm‐conforming ones, as the cause of some future outcome. We show that the abnormal‐selection effects are not primarily explained by the perception of agency (Experiment 4). We discuss these results in relation to recent efforts to model causal judgment.
Does Choice Cause an Illusion of Control?
Joowon Klusowski, Deborah Small & Joseph Simmons
Psychological Science, forthcoming
Abstract:
Previous research suggests that choice causes an illusion of control -- that it makes people feel more likely to achieve preferable outcomes, even when they are selecting among options that are functionally identical (e.g., lottery tickets with an identical chance of winning). This research has been widely accepted as evidence that choice can have significant welfare effects, even when it confers no actual control. In this article, we report the results of 17 experiments that examined whether choice truly causes an illusion of control (N = 10,825 online and laboratory participants). We found that choice rarely makes people feel more likely to achieve preferable outcomes -- unless it makes the preferable outcomes actually more likely -- and when it does, it is not because choice causes an illusion but because choice reflects some participants’ preexisting (illusory) beliefs that the functionally identical options are not identical. Overall, choice does not seem to cause an illusion of control.
The endowment effect: Loss aversion or a buy-sell discrepancy?
Gal Smitizsky, Wendy Liu & Uri Gneezy
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, forthcoming
Abstract:
In a typical endowment effect experiment, individuals state a higher willingness-to-accept to sell an object than a willingness-to-pay to obtain the object. The leading explanation for the endowment effect is loss aversion for the object. An alternative explanation is based on a buy-sell discrepancy, according to which people price the object in a strategic way. Disentangling these two explanations is the goal of this research. To this end, we introduce a third condition, in which participants receive an object and are asked how much they are willing to pay to keep it (Pay-to-Keep). Comparing the three conditions we find no evidence for loss aversion in the endowment effect setting. We found support for the buy-sell strategy mechanism. Our results have important implications for the understanding of buyer and seller behaviors, subjective value, and elicitation methods.
Difficult Turned Easy: Suggestion Renders a Challenging Visual Task Simple
Mathieu Landry et al.
Psychological Science, January 2021, Pages 39-49
Abstract:
Suggestions can cause some individuals to miss or disregard existing visual stimuli, but can they infuse sensory input with nonexistent information? Although several prominent theories of hypnotic suggestion propose that mental imagery can change our perceptual experience, data to support this stance remain sparse. The present study addressed this lacuna, showing how suggesting the presence of physically absent, yet critical, visual information transforms an otherwise difficult task into an easy one. Here, we show how adult participants who are highly susceptible to hypnotic suggestion successfully hallucinated visual occluders on top of moving objects. Our findings support the idea that, at least in some people, suggestions can add perceptual information to sensory input. This observation adds meaningful weight to theoretical, clinical, and applied aspects of the brain and psychological sciences.
Learning the same motor task twice impairs its retention in a time- and dose-dependent manner
Raphael Hamel et al.
Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences, January 2021
Abstract:
Anterograde interference emerges when two differing tasks are learned in close temporal proximity, an effect repeatedly attributed to a competition between differing task memories. However, recent development alternatively suggests that initial learning may trigger a refractory period that occludes neuroplasticity and impairs subsequent learning, consequently mediating interference independently of memory competition. Accordingly, this study tested the hypothesis that interference can emerge when the same motor task is being learned twice, that is when competition between memories is prevented. In a first experiment, the inter-session interval (ISI) between two identical motor learning sessions was manipulated to be 2 min, 1 h or 24 h. Results revealed that retention of the second session was impaired as compared to the first one when the ISI was 2 min but not when it was 1 h or 24 h, indicating a time-dependent process. Results from a second experiment replicated those of the first one and revealed that adding a third motor learning session with a 2 min ISI further impaired retention, indicating a dose-dependent process. Results from a third experiment revealed that the retention impairments did not take place when a learning session was preceded by simple rehearsal of the motor task without concurrent learning, thus ruling out fatigue and confirming that retention is impaired specifically when preceded by a learning session. Altogether, the present results suggest that competing memories is not the sole mechanism mediating anterograde interference and introduce the possibility that a time- and dose-dependent refractory period - independent of fatigue - also contributes to its emergence. One possibility is that learning transiently perturbs the homeostasis of learning-related neuronal substrates. Introducing additional learning when homeostasis is still perturbed may not only impair performance improvements, but also memory formation.