认知偏差任务中的鼠标光标运动揭示了潜在的加工差异

IF 1.4 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
Jinjin Wu, George D. Farmer, Paul A. Warren
{"title":"认知偏差任务中的鼠标光标运动揭示了潜在的加工差异","authors":"Jinjin Wu,&nbsp;George D. Farmer,&nbsp;Paul A. Warren","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Biases are prevalent in human judgment and decision-making (JDM). Previous research has suggested that some biases might share common underlying causes and can be accounted for under dual-process theories in which fast and error-prone System 1 drives erroneous behavior. Here, we use an online paradigm to investigate similarities and differences in behavior across three commonly studied cognitive bias phenomena: cognitive reflection test (CRT), gambler's fallacy (GF), and conjunction fallacy (CF). These are all thought to emerge during biased System 1 processing. Critically, we examine both summative performance metrics and process tracing measures derived from mouse cursor movements and growth curve analysis (GCA). Summative performance in these tasks was broadly in line with previous studies, and we replicated correlations in accuracy between tasks (CRT vs. CF and CRT vs. GF). However, we found key differences in our GCA of mouse trajectories. Specifically, in the CRT and the CF tasks, participants tended to choose the incorrect option more quickly relative to the correct option, as might be expected. However, the opposite tendency was observed for GF—people tended to take longer to choose the wrong answer. We also found evidence from the mouse movement analyses for between-task differences in the extent to which participants were tempted by the option they did not choose. These findings challenge prominent dual-process accounts of JDM and highlight the potential of process tracing (and in particular mouse movement analyses) for revealing insights into cognitive processes.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"38 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.70025","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mouse Cursor Movements in Cognitive Bias Tasks Reveal Underlying Processing Differences\",\"authors\":\"Jinjin Wu,&nbsp;George D. Farmer,&nbsp;Paul A. Warren\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/bdm.70025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Biases are prevalent in human judgment and decision-making (JDM). Previous research has suggested that some biases might share common underlying causes and can be accounted for under dual-process theories in which fast and error-prone System 1 drives erroneous behavior. Here, we use an online paradigm to investigate similarities and differences in behavior across three commonly studied cognitive bias phenomena: cognitive reflection test (CRT), gambler's fallacy (GF), and conjunction fallacy (CF). These are all thought to emerge during biased System 1 processing. Critically, we examine both summative performance metrics and process tracing measures derived from mouse cursor movements and growth curve analysis (GCA). Summative performance in these tasks was broadly in line with previous studies, and we replicated correlations in accuracy between tasks (CRT vs. CF and CRT vs. GF). However, we found key differences in our GCA of mouse trajectories. Specifically, in the CRT and the CF tasks, participants tended to choose the incorrect option more quickly relative to the correct option, as might be expected. However, the opposite tendency was observed for GF—people tended to take longer to choose the wrong answer. We also found evidence from the mouse movement analyses for between-task differences in the extent to which participants were tempted by the option they did not choose. These findings challenge prominent dual-process accounts of JDM and highlight the potential of process tracing (and in particular mouse movement analyses) for revealing insights into cognitive processes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48112,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making\",\"volume\":\"38 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.70025\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.70025\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.70025","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

偏见在人类判断和决策(JDM)中普遍存在。先前的研究表明,一些偏见可能有共同的潜在原因,可以在双过程理论下解释,在双过程理论中,快速且容易出错的系统1驱动错误行为。在这里,我们使用一个在线范式来研究三种常见的认知偏差现象:认知反射测试(CRT)、赌徒谬误(GF)和连接谬误(CF)的行为异同。这些都被认为是在有偏见的系统1处理过程中出现的。关键的是,我们检查了总结性性能指标和从鼠标光标移动和生长曲线分析(GCA)得出的过程跟踪指标。这些任务的总体表现与之前的研究大致一致,我们复制了任务之间的准确性相关性(CRT与CF和CRT与GF)。然而,我们发现了小鼠轨迹GCA的关键差异。具体来说,在CRT和CF任务中,与正确选项相比,参与者倾向于更快地选择错误选项,这可能是意料之中的。然而,在gf中观察到相反的趋势——人们倾向于花更长的时间来选择错误的答案。我们还从鼠标移动分析中发现了任务间差异的证据,即参与者被他们没有选择的选项所诱惑的程度。这些发现挑战了JDM的突出双进程描述,并强调了过程追踪(特别是鼠标运动分析)在揭示认知过程方面的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Mouse Cursor Movements in Cognitive Bias Tasks Reveal Underlying Processing Differences

Mouse Cursor Movements in Cognitive Bias Tasks Reveal Underlying Processing Differences

Biases are prevalent in human judgment and decision-making (JDM). Previous research has suggested that some biases might share common underlying causes and can be accounted for under dual-process theories in which fast and error-prone System 1 drives erroneous behavior. Here, we use an online paradigm to investigate similarities and differences in behavior across three commonly studied cognitive bias phenomena: cognitive reflection test (CRT), gambler's fallacy (GF), and conjunction fallacy (CF). These are all thought to emerge during biased System 1 processing. Critically, we examine both summative performance metrics and process tracing measures derived from mouse cursor movements and growth curve analysis (GCA). Summative performance in these tasks was broadly in line with previous studies, and we replicated correlations in accuracy between tasks (CRT vs. CF and CRT vs. GF). However, we found key differences in our GCA of mouse trajectories. Specifically, in the CRT and the CF tasks, participants tended to choose the incorrect option more quickly relative to the correct option, as might be expected. However, the opposite tendency was observed for GF—people tended to take longer to choose the wrong answer. We also found evidence from the mouse movement analyses for between-task differences in the extent to which participants were tempted by the option they did not choose. These findings challenge prominent dual-process accounts of JDM and highlight the potential of process tracing (and in particular mouse movement analyses) for revealing insights into cognitive processes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral Decision Making is a multidisciplinary journal with a broad base of content and style. It publishes original empirical reports, critical review papers, theoretical analyses and methodological contributions. The Journal also features book, software and decision aiding technique reviews, abstracts of important articles published elsewhere and teaching suggestions. The objective of the Journal is to present and stimulate behavioral research on decision making and to provide a forum for the evaluation of complementary, contrasting and conflicting perspectives. These perspectives include psychology, management science, sociology, political science and economics. Studies of behavioral decision making in naturalistic and applied settings are encouraged.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信