An official website of the United States government
Working memory, the brain’s ability to temporarily store and recall information, is a critical part of decision making – but it has its limits. The brain can only store so much information, for so long. Since decisions are not often acted on immediately, information held in working memory ‘degrades’ over time. However, it is unknown whether or not this degradation of information over time affects the accuracy of later decisions. The tactics that people use, knowingly or otherwise, to store information in working memory also remain unclear. Do people store pieces of information such as numbers, objects and particular details? Or do they tend to compute that information, make some preliminary judgement and recall their verdict later? Does the strategy chosen impact people’s decision-making? To investigate, Schapiro et al. devised a series of experiments to test whether the limitations of working memory, and how people store information, affect the accuracy of decisions they make. First, participants were shown an array of colored discs on a screen. Then, either immediately after seeing the disks or a few seconds later, the participants were asked to recall the position of one of the disks they had seen, or the average position of all the disks. This measured how much information degraded for a decision based on multiple items, and how much for a decision based on a single item. From this, the method of information storage used to make a decision could be inferred. Schapiro et al. found that the accuracy of people’s responses worsened over time, whether they remembered the position of each individual disk, or computed their average location before responding. The greater the delay between seeing the disks and reporting their location, the less accurate people’s responses tended to be. Similarly, the more disks a participant saw, the less accurate their response became. This suggests that however people store information, if working memory reaches capacity, decision-making suffers and that, over time, stored information decays. Schapiro et al. also noticed that participants remembered location information in different ways depending on the task and how many disks they were shown at once. This suggests people adopt different strategies to retain information momentarily. In summary, these findings help to explain how people process and store information to make decisions and how the limitations of working memory impact their decision-making ability. A better understanding of how people use working memory to make decisions may also shed light on situations or brain conditions where decision-making is impaired.
more »
« less
Collective action within an environment of unknown unknowns: Experiences with the port of Mars Game
There is limited research about how groups solve collective action problems in uncertain environments, especially if groups are confronted with unknown unknowns. We aim to develop a more comprehensive view of the characteristics that allow both groups and individuals to navigate such issues more effectively. In this article, we present the results of a new online experiment where individuals make decisions of whether to contribute to the group or pursue self-interest in an environment with high uncertainty, including unknown unknowns. The behavioral game, Port of Mars is framed as a first-generation habitat on Mars where participants have to make decisions on how much to invest in the shared infrastructure to maintain system health and how much to invest in personal goals. Participants can chat during the game, and take surveys before and after the game in order to measure personality attributes and observations from the game. Initial results suggest that a higher average social value orientation and more communication are the key factors that explain why some groups are more successful than others in surviving Port of Mars. Neither other attributes of players nor the group’s communication content explain the observed differences between groups.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2049553
- PAR ID:
- 10559046
- Editor(s):
- Zuckerman, Inon
- Publisher / Repository:
- PLOS ONE
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- PLOS ONE
- Volume:
- 19
- Issue:
- 8
- ISSN:
- 1932-6203
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- e0308363
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
This Innovative Practice Full Paper presents a novel, narrative, game-based approach to introducing first-year engineering students to concepts in ethical decision making. Approximately 250 first-year engineering students at the University of Connecticut played through our adventure, titled Mars: An Ethical Expedition, by voting weekly as a class on a presented dilemma. Literature shows that case studies still dominate learning sciences research on engineering ethical education, and that novel, active learning-based techniques, such as games, are infrequently used but can have a positive impact on both student engagement and learning. In this work, we suggest that games are a form of situated (context-based) learning, where the game setting provides learners with an authentic but safe space in which to explore engineering ethical choices and their consequences. As games normalize learning through failure, they present a unique opportunity for students to explore ethical decision making in a non-judgmental, playful, and safe way.We explored the situated nature of ethical decision making through a qualitative deconstruction of the weekly scenarios that students engaged with over the course of the twelve-week narrative. To assess their ethical reasoning, students took the Engineering Ethics Reasoning Instrument (EERI), a quantitative engineering ethics reasoning survey, at the beginning and end of the semester. The EERI scenarios were deconstructed to reveal their core ethical dilemmas, and then common elements between the EERI and our Mars adventure were compared to determine how students responded to similar ethical dilemmas presented in each context.We noted that students' responses to the ethical decisions in the Mars adventure scenarios were sometimes substantially different both from their response to the EERI scenario as well as from other decisions they made within the context of the game, despite the core ethical dilemma being the same. This suggests that they make ethical decisions in some situations that differ from a presumed abstract understanding of post-conventional moral reasoning. This has implications for how ethical reasoning can be taught and scaffolded in educational settings.more » « less
-
Reporting normative feedback to residential energy consumers has been found effective at reducing residential energy consumption. Upon receiving normative feedback households tend to modify their use to become in line with group norms. The effect of normative messages is partially moderated by how personally relevant normative reference groups are to the individual. Advanced energy metering technologies capture households’ energy use patterns, making it possible to generate highly similar and relevant normative reference groups in a non-invasive manner. Unfortunately, it is not well understood how similar individuals are to other group members. It also remains unknown how much individuals identify with behavioral reference groups. Therefore, this research aims to investigate how households perceive behavioral reference groups used in normative comparisons. Survey questionnaires are collected from 2,008 participants using Amazon Mechanical Turk. It is found that while households’ behaviors are more similar when grouped based on energy use profiles than based on geographic proximity, they identify more closely with proximity-based groups. Also, members’ group identification increases as individuals have higher similarity in energy use behaviors with other group members. This implies that enhancing the identity of profile-based behavioral reference groups will lead to an increase in norm adherence, and in turn reductions in household energy use.more » « less
-
Nooripour, Roghieh (Ed.)School choice initiatives–which empower parents to choose which schools their children attend–are built on the assumptions that parents know what features of a school are most important to their family and that they are capable of focusing on the most important features when they make their decisions. However, decades of psychological research suggest that decision makers lack metacognitive knowledge of the factors that influence their decisions. We sought to reconcile this discrepancy between the policy assumptions and the psychological research. To do so, we asked participants to complete Choice-Based Conjoint surveys in which they made series of choices between different hypothetical schools. We then asked participants to self-report the weight they placed on each attribute when making their choices. Across four studies, we found that participants did not know how much weight they had placed on various school attributes. Average correlations between stated and revealed weights ranged fromr= .34–.54. Stated weights predicted different choices than revealed weights in 16.41–20.63% of decisions. These metacognitive limitations persisted regardless of whether the participants were parents or non-parents (Study 1a/1b), the nature of the attributes that participants used to evaluate alternatives (Study 2), and whether or not decision makers had access to school ratings that could be used as metacognitive aids (Study 3). In line with prior psychological research–and in contract to policy assumptions–these findings demonstrate that decision makers do not have particularly strong metacognitive knowledge of the factors that influence their school choice decisions. As a result, parents making school choice decisions are likely to seek out and use the wrong information, thus leading to suboptimal school choices. Future research should replicate these results in more ecologically valid samples and test new approaches to school choice that account for these metacognitive limitations.more » « less
-
Transparency matters a lot to people who experience moderation on online platforms; much CSCW research has viewed offering explanations as one of the primary solutions to enhance moderation transparency. However, relatively little attention has been paid to unpacking what transparency entails in moderation design, especially for content creators. We interviewed 28 YouTubers to understand their moderation experiences and analyze the dimensions of moderation transparency. We identified four primary dimensions: participants desired the moderation system to present moderation decisions saliently, explain the decisions profoundly, afford communication with the users effectively, and offer repairment and learning opportunities. We discuss how these four dimensions are mutually constitutive and conditioned in the context of creator moderation, where the target of governance mechanisms extends beyond the content to creator careers. We then elaborate on how a dynamic, transparency perspective could value content creators' digital labor, how transparency design could support creators' learning, as well as implications for transparency design of other creator platforms.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308363
