Search

Additional co-authors: Ivan Ropovik, Balazs Aczel, Lena F. Aeschbach, Luca Andrighetto, Jack D. Arnal, Holly Arrow, Peter Babincak, Bence E. Bakos, Gabriel Banik, Ernest Baskin, Radomir Belopavlovic, Michael H. Bernstein, Michal Bialek, Nicholas G. Bloxsom, Bojana Bodroža, Diane B. V. Bonfiglio, Leanne Boucher, Florian Bruhlmann, Claudia C. Brumbaugh, Erica Casini, Yiling Chen, Carlo Chiorri, William J. Chopik, Oliver Christ, Antonia M. Ciunci, Heather M. Claypool, Sean Coary, Marija V. Cˇolic, W. Matthew Collins, Paul G. Curran, Chris R. Day, Anna Dreber, John E. Edlund, Filipe Falcao, Anna Fedor, Lily Feinberg, Ian R. Ferguson, Maire Ford, Michael C. Frank, Emily Fryberger, Alexander Garinther, Katarzyna Gawryluk, Kayla Ashbaugh, Mauro Giacomantonio, Steffen R. Giessner, Jon E. Grahe, Rosanna E. Guadagno, Ewa Halasa, Rias A. Hilliard, Joachim Huffmeier, Sean Hughes, Katarzyna Idzikowska, Michael Inzlicht, Alan Jern, William Jimenez-Leal, Magnus Johannesson, Jennifer A. Joy-Gaba, Mathias Kauff, Danielle J. Kellier, Grecia Kessinger, Mallory C. Kidwell, Amanda M. Kimbrough, Josiah P. J. King, Vanessa S. Kolb, Sabina Kolodziej, Marton Kovacs, Karolina Krasuska, Sue Kraus, Lacy E. Krueger, Katarzyna Kuchno, Caio Ambrosio Lage, Eleanor V. Langford, Carmel A. Levitan, Tiago Jesse Souza de Lima, Hause Lin, Samuel Lins, Jia E. Loy, Dylan Manfredi, Łukasz Markiewicz, Madhavi Menon, Brett Mercier, Mitchell Metzger, Venus Meyet, Jeremy K. Miller, Andres Montealegre, Don A. Moore, Rafal Muda, Gideon Nave, Austin Lee Nichols, Sarah A. Novak, Christian Nunnally, Ana Orlic, Anna Palinkas, Angelo Panno, Kimberly P. Parks, Ivana Pedovic, Emilian Pekala, Matthew R. Penner, Sebastiaan Pessers, Boban Petrovic, Thomas Pfeiffer, Damian Pienkosz, Emanuele Preti, Danka Puric, Tiago Ramos, Jonathan Ravid, Timothy S. Razza, Katrin Rentzsch, Juliette Richetin, Sean C. Rife, Anna Dalla Rosa, Kaylis Hase Rudy, Janos Salamon, Blair Saunders, Przemyslaw Sawicki, Kathleen Schmidt, Kurt Schuepfer, Thomas Schultze, Stefan Schulz-Hardt, Astrid Schutz, Ani N. Shabazian, Rachel L. Shubella, Adam Siegel, Ruben Silva, Barbara Sioma, Lauren Skorb, Luana Elayne Cunha de Souza, Sara Steegen, L. A. R. Stein, R. Weylin Sternglanz, Darko Stojilovic, Daniel Storage, Gavin Brent Sullivan, Barnabas Szaszi, Peter Szecsi, Orsolya Szoke, Attila Szuts, Manuela Thomae, Natasha D. Tidwell, Carly Tocco, Ann-Kathrin Torka, Francis Tuerlinckx, Wolf Vanpaemel, Leigh Ann Vaughn, Michelangelo Vianello, Domenico Viganola, Maria Vlachou, Ryan J. Walker, Sophia C. Weissgerber, Aaron L. Wichman, Bradford J. Wiggins, Daniel Wolf, Michael J. Wood, David Zealley, Iris Žeželj, Mark Zrubka, and Brian A. Nosek

Developmental research, like many fields, is plagued by low sample sizes and inconclusive findings. The problem is amplified by the difficulties associated with recruiting infant participants for research as well as the increased variability in infant responses. With sequential testing designs providing a viable alternative to paradigms facing such issues, the current study implemented a Sequential Bayes Factor (SBF) design on three findings in the developmental literature. In particular, using the framework described by Schonbrodt and colleagues (2017), we examined infants' sensitivity to mispronunciations of familiar words, their learning of novel word-object associations from cross-situational learning paradigms, and their assumption of mutual exclusivity in assigning novel labels to novel objects. We tested an initial sample of 20 participants in each study, incrementally increasing sample size by one and computing a Bayes Factor with each additional participant. In one study, we were able to obtain moderate evidence for the alternate hypotheses despite testing less than half the number of participants as in the original study. We did not replicate the findings of the cross-situational learning study. Indeed, the data were five times more likely under the null hypothesis, allowing us to conclude that infants did not recognize the trained word-object associations presented in the task. We discuss these findings in light of the advantages and disadvantages of using a SBF design in developmental research while also providing researchers with an account of how we implemented this design across multiple studies.

We investigated whether Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) influences social validation as measured by a Judge-Advisor task. In contrast to healthy controls and patients with their DBS OFF, patients with their stimulation switched on do not experience a gain of confidence after receiving competent advice.

When advice comes from interdependent sources (e.g., from advisors who use the same database), less information should be gained as compared to independent advice. On the other hand, since individuals strive for consistency, they should be more confident in consistent compared to conflicting advice, and interdependent advice should be more consistent than independent advice. In a study investigating the differential effects of interdependent versus independent advice on a judge's accuracy and confidence (Yaniv, Choshen-Hillel, & Milyavsky, 2009), advice interdependence was confounded with another variable, namely closeness of the advice to the judge's estimate. Interdependent advice was not only more consistent than independent advice but also closer to the judge's first estimate. The present study aimed at disentangling the effects of consensus and closeness of the advice by adding a third experimental condition in which interdependent (and, hence, consistent) advice was far from the judge's own estimate. We found that, as suggested by Yaniv et al., accuracy gains were indeed a consequence of advisor interdependence. However, in contrast to Yaniv et al.'s conclusions, confidence in the correctness of one's estimates was mostly a function of the advice's proximity to the participants' initial estimations, thereby indicating a social validation effect. (PsycINFO Database Record

Abstract. Research in the judge-advisor-paradigm suggests that advice is generally utilized less than it should be according to its quality. In a series of four experiments, we challenge this widely held assumption. We hypothesize that when advice quality is low, the opposite phenomenon, namely overutilization of advice, occurs. We further assume that this overutilization effect is the result of anchoring: advice serves as an anchor, thus causing an adjustment toward even useless advice. The data of our four experiments support these hypotheses. Judges systematically adjusted their estimates toward advice that we introduced to them as being useless, and this effect was stable after controlling for intentional utilization of this advice. Furthermore, we demonstrate that anchoring-based adjustment toward advice is independent of advice quality. Our findings enhance our understanding of the processes involved in advice taking and identify a potential threat to judgment accuracy arising from an inability to discount useless advice.

When making judgments and decisions, people suffering from depression are often faced with opinions and advice from others (e.g., from their therapists) but it is unclear how their psychopathology alters the utilization of such information. This study is the first to examine whether depressed people are more or less susceptible to informational social influence. To this end, we employed the Judge–Advisor-System, which allows for a pure test of how people utilize information from others. We found that depressed participants had significantly higher advice taking values than non-depressed participants, which was mediated by self-esteem. A fine-grained analysis of these group differences revealed that depressed participants were more likely to revise their initial estimates after receiving advice than non-depressed people. Yet, once having decided to revise their estimates, depressed people did not weight advice more heavily. Theoretical implications concerning two qualitatively independent effects of depression on advice taking are discussed.

Research on escalation of commitment suggests that decision-makers make use of additional information when confronted with a potentially losing course of action. Veridical information is a helpful tool when deciding whether to continue or de-escalate commitment. However, field data suggests that one primary source of information, namely information provided by experts, is often biased toward the continuation of projects. This bias is partly the result of attempts to influence decision-makers to escalate their commitment. Previous research has, so far, not addressed the question of how decision-makers in an escalation context utilize meta-information that makes them aware of such biases. In three experiments, we show that decision-makers act in accordance with expert advice: they further escalate their commitment when the experts suggest continuation of a failing project, and they de-escalate their commitment when the experts argue in favor of withdrawal (Experiment 1). When participants are made aware of the possibility that the expert advice is biased, the impact of this advice is reduced (Experiment 2). Most importantly, when decision-makers were made aware beyond doubt that the experts aimed to manipulate them, they also relied on the information less, but they failed to fully ignore it (Experiment 3). In sum, our data suggest that decision-makers in an escalation context are prone to attempts at manipulation as they cannot fully ignore biased advice even when the deceptive motive of their advisors is disclosed to them.

A growing body of research shows that individual differences in working memory capacity play a pivotal role for a large number of higher order cognitive tasks. Surprisingly, however, the impact of individual differences in working memory capacity on group performance has received little attention. In this conceptual article, we focus on three typical group tasks (group idea generation, group decision making, group judgment) and, for each task, provide an analysis of how individual differences in working memory capacity might affect group performance. Our key idea is that group interaction is a cognitively demanding task as group members have to continuously monitor the ongoing conversation, hold their ideas in memory, integrate the information put forth by others, and update their mental representations accordingly. Therefore, individual differences in working memory capacity are presumed to have a profound impact on how people process information during group interaction.

Escalation of commitment denotes decision makers' increased reinvestment of resources in a losing course of action. Despite the relevance of this topic, little is known about how information is processed in escalation situations, that is, whether decision makers who receive negative outcome feedback on their initial decision search for and/or process information biasedly and whether these biases contribute to escalating commitment. Contrary to a widely cited study by E. J. Conlon and J. M. Parks (1987), in 3 experiments, the authors found that biases do not occur on the level of information search. Neither in a direct replication and extension of the original study with largely increased test power (Experiment 1) nor under methodologically improved conditions (Experiments 2 and 3) did decision makers responsible for failure differ from nonresponsible decision makers with regards to information search, and no selective search for information supporting the initial decision or voting for further reinvestment was observed. However, Experiments 3 and 4 show that the evaluation of the previously sought information is biased among participants who were responsible for initiating the course of action. Mediation analyses show that this evaluation bias in favor of reinvestment partially mediated the responsibility effect on escalation of commitment.

A rational strategy to update and revise one’s uncertain beliefs is to take advice by other agents who are better informed. Adults routinely engage in such advice taking in systematic and selective ways depending on relevant characteristics such as reliability of advisors. The current study merged research in social and developmental psychology to examine whether children also adjust their initial judgment to varying degrees depending on the characteristics of their advisors. Participants aged 3 to 6 years played a game in which they made initial judgments, received advice, and subsequently made final judgments. They systematically revised their judgments in light of the advice, and they did so selectively as a function of advisor expertise. They made greater adjustments to their initial judgment when advised by an apparently knowledgeable informant. This suggests that the pattern of advice taking studied in social psychology has its roots in early development.

Considering advice from others is a pervasive element of human social life. We used the judge-advisor paradigm to investigate the neural correlates of advice evaluation and advice integration by means of functional magnetic resonance imaging. Our results demonstrate that evaluating advice recruits the "mentalizing network," brain regions activated when people think about others' mental states. Important activation differences exist, however, depending upon the perceived competence of the advisor. Consistently, additional analyses demonstrate that integrating others' advice, i.e., how much participants actually adjust their initial estimate, correlates with neural activity in the centromedial amygdala in the case of a competent and with activity in visual cortex in the case of an incompetent advisor. Taken together, our findings, therefore, demonstrate that advice evaluation and integration rely on dissociable neural mechanisms and that significant differences exist depending upon the advisor's reputation, which suggests different modes of processing advice depending upon the perceived competence of the advisor.

1. An dem dunkelaktiven, baumbewohnenden Kleinbeutler Petaurus mit sozialer und territorialer Lebensweise wird die innerartliche Verstandigung durch Dufte untersucht. 2. Die Begriffe Individual-, Sippen- und Artduft werden funktionell definiert; es wird eine Aufstellung der Funktionsbereiche von Saugerduften gegeben. 3. Eine Frontal- und Sternaldruse, Drusen der Analregion und des Beutelinneren werden beschrieben. Auf eine Reihe unsicherer Duftdrusen wird kurz eingegangen. 4. Neben einer Territorialmarkierung existiert eine Eigen- und eine Partnermarkierung; die Markierung kann sowohl passiv als auch aktiv erfolgen. Sechs aktive Territorialmarkierweisen werden beschrieben. Der aktiven Duftubertragung auf Artgenossen dient ein spezifisches Verhalten. 5. Die Duftstoffe der Frontal- und Sternaldruse sowie der Analregion eines ♂ sind in ihrer Duftqualitat verschieden. 6. Erwachsene ♂♂ erzeugen in den genannten Regionen individuell differenzierte Dufte, die — relativ pro Sippe betrachtet — unabhangig von den Geruchen der Umgebung und der aufgenommenen Nahrung sind. Erwachsene ♀♀ besitzen in ihrem Beutel individuell differenzierte Duftstoffe. 7. Die Adaptation an sippeneigene und sippenfremde Dufte wird behandelt. Der Grad der Adaptation von ♂♂ ist spezifisch fur sippenfremde und sippeneigene Frontaldrusendufte. 8. Im Speichel von ♂♂ wurden Duftstoffe nachgewiesen; sie sind zumindest nach Sippen in ihrer Duftqualitat differenziert. 9. Die bei Beobachtung des Markierverhaltens festgestellte Duftubertragung zwischen Tieren, die ein gemeinsames Nest bewohnen, wurde auch experimentell festgestellt. 10. Sippenfremde Duftstoffe allein losen nur in Ausnahmefallen Aggression aus. Zusatzliche Signale sind notwendig fur eine Kampfreaktion. Bei Ausschaltung chemischer Kommunikation wird weder durch optische noch durch akustische Signale Aggression ausgelost. 11. Fur eine experimentelle Vereinigung zweier Sippen ist das Benutzen eines gemeinsamen Nestes zur selben Zeit uber mehrere Tage hin erforderlich. 12. Individuell differenzierte Dufte fungieren als Individualdufte, wenn sie personliches Erkennen auslosen. Erwachsene ♂♂ und ♀♀ einer Sippe kennen sich personlich. Zwischen Muttertieren und ihren Jungen bestehen ab einem gewissen Alter gegenseitige, personliche Bindungen. Jedes ♀ zieht normalerweise nur seine Jungen auf. 13. Individuell differenzierte Dufte fungieren als Sippendufte, wenn sie ein anonymes Erkennen der Sippenzugehorigkeit bewirken. Sie sind uber die Sippenmitglieder und im Territorium verbreitet und stammen vor allem von den starksten ♂♂. Nestjunge lernen ihre Sippenmitglieder zunachst anonym an Sippenduften kennen (auser der eigenen Mutter). 14. Trotz der sekundaren Mischung der Dufte an den Tieren werden verschiedene Einzeldufte unterschieden. 15. Zwischen dem Aufbau und dem Einhalten einer Rangordnung und Duften wurden mehrere Beziehungen festgestellt. Der Aufbau einer Rangordnung kann anonym erfolgen. 16. Artdufte bewirken das Erkennen der Artzugehorigkeit eines Tieres und geben verschiedene physiologische Zustande an. Sie fungieren als Sexualdufte (Unterscheiden des Geschlechtes, Stimulation), bei der Unterscheidung der Altersstufen und der Brutpflege. 17. ♂♂ und ♀♀ reagieren in verschiedenen Entwicklungsstadien unterschiedlich auf bestimmte Dufte ihrer eigenen und fremder Sippen.

Feldbiologische Beobachtungen und fotographische Belege uber das Gleitflugverhalten vonPetaurus breviceps papuanus (Thomas) werden zusammengestellt. Die nach der Beobachtung masig guten Gleitzahlen stehen nach Windkanalmessungen im Einklang mit der Form der aerodynamischen Gesamtpolaren eines Stopfpraparats. Nach der Polarenform liegen die beobachteten extrem hohen Korperanstellwinkel von 30 ° beim Bremsanflug zur Landung noch unterhalb des kritischen Anstellwinkels. Die beobachtete gute Manovrierfahigkeit findet ihre Erklarung in den gemessenen hohen Roll-, Kipp- und Giermomenten, die mit Schwanz und Vorderextremitaten induziert werden konnen.