More Like this

1. Formalizing the fundamental Faustian bargain: Inefficacious decision-makers sacrifice their freedom of choice to coercive leaders for economic security

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275265  

   DeCaro, Daniel A.; DeCaro, Marci S.; Hotaling, Jared M.; Appel, Rachel (September 2022, PLOS ONE)

   Fernandes, Thiago P. (Ed.)

   Individuals typically prefer the freedom to make their own decisions. Yet, people often trade their own decision control (procedural utility) to gain economic security (outcome utility). Decision science has not reconciled these observations. We examined how decision-makers’ efficacy and security perceptions influence when, why, and how individuals exchange procedural and outcome utility. Undergraduate adults ( N = 77; M age = 19.45 years; 73% female; 62% Caucasian, 13% African American) were recruited from the psychology participant pool at a midwestern U.S. metropolitan university. Participants made financial decisions in easy and hard versions of a paid card task resembling a standard gambling task, with a learning component. During half the trials, they made decisions with a No-Choice Manager who controlled their decisions, versus a Choice Manager who granted decision control. The hard task was designed to be too difficult for most participants, undermining their efficacy and security, and ensuring financial losses. The No-Choice Manager was designed to perform moderately well, ensuring financial gains. Participants felt greater outcome satisfaction (utility) for financial gains earned via Choice, but not losses. Participants (85%) preferred the Choice manager in the easy task but preferred the No-Choice Manager (56%) in the hard task. This change in preference for choice corresponded with self-efficacy and was mediated by perceived security. We used Decision Field Theory to develop potential cognitive models of these decisions. Preferences were best described by a model that assumed decision-makers initially prefer Choice, but update their preference based on loss-dependent attentional focus. When they earned losses (hard task), decision-makers focused more on economic payoffs (financial security), causing them to deemphasize procedural utility. Losses competed for attention, pulling attention toward economic survivability and away from the inherent value of choice. Decision-makers are more likely to sacrifice freedom of choice to leaders they perceive as efficacious to alleviate perceived threats to economic security. 

   more » « less
2. Community Cultures: Broadening Participation By Understanding How Rural Communities Support Engineering as a College Major Choice

   Paretti, Marie C.; Grohs, Jacob R.; Anderson, William Michael; Lester, Marlena McGlothlin; Baum, Liesl M.; Newbill, Phyllis Leary; Kelly, Stacey Leigh (July 2018, 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition)

   his project is supported by an NSF BPE grant. Career choices, such as engineering, are influenced by a number of factors including personal interest, ability, competence beliefs, prior work-related experience, and financial and social supports. However, financial and social support, a particularly significant factor for rural students’ career decisions, is often overlooked in the literature exploring career choice. Moreover, little work has explored how communities serve as key influencers for supporting or promoting engineering as a career choice. Therefore, the goal of this study is to explore the ways in which communities provide support to students deciding to pursue engineering as a college major. To better understand how students from selected rural area high schools choose engineering as a major, we conducted focus group discussions consisting of 4-6 students each from selected schools to talk collectively about their high school experiences and their choice to major in engineering. Choosing focus group participants from different schools enabled us to elicit tacit perceptions and beliefs that may not be evident when students from the same community talk with one another. That is, as students share their experiences across schools, they may recognize differences in their experiences that, though otherwise unconscious or unacknowledged, proved significant in their choice of college and major. We expect that certain community programs and the individuals involved will have some influence on students’ decisions to study engineering at [University Name]. We anticipate that the results will yield two key outcomes: 1. A holistic understanding of the communities that effectively support and encourage engineering major choice for rural students. 2. Locally driven, contextually relevant recommendations for policies and programs that would better enable economically disadvantaged, rural schools in southwestern Virginia to support engineering as a career choice for high school students. By understanding the ways some economically-disadvantaged rural communities support engineering as a career choice and linking a broad spectrum of rural communities together around this issue, this project will broaden participation in engineering by increasing support for students from these areas. By shifting our focus from students to communities, this research broadens our understanding of career choice by capturing the perspectives of community members (including not only school personnel, but also community leaders, students’ families, business owners and others) who often play a key role in students’ decisions, particularly in rural communities. Our research will bring these voices into the conversation to help scholars learn from and respond to these essential community perspectives. In doing so, we will provide a more nuanced model of engineering career choice that can then be explored in other rural contexts. This work thus contributes to the research on career choice, rural education, and engineering education. © 2018 American Society for Engineering Education 

   more » « less
3. When Choices Are Mistakes

   https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20201550  

   Nielsen, Kirby; Rehbeck, John (July 2022, American Economic Review)

   Using a laboratory experiment, we identify whether decision-makers consider it a mistake to violate canonical choice axioms. To do this, we incentivize subjects to report axioms they want their decisions to satisfy. Then, subjects make lottery choices which might conflict with their axiom preferences. In instances of conflict, we give subjects the opportunity to re-evaluate their decisions. We find that many individuals want to follow canonical axioms and revise their choices to be consistent with the axioms. In a shorter online experiment, we show correlations of mistakes with response times and measures of cognition. (JEL C91, D12, D44, D91) 

   more » « less
4. What to “make” of school: Revealing the conflicting institutional logics of grassroots making and formal education

   https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1767526  

   Weiner, Steven; Jordan, Shawn S.; Lande, Micah (May 2020, Journal of Research on Technology in Education)

   null (Ed.)

   This article explores the experiences and opinions of young makers and their parents regarding the integration of maker technologies, activities, and spaces into their schools. By utilizing institutional logic theory as an analytical lens, conflicts between the values, goals, and norms of making and schooling were revealed. The findings suggest that participants view engagement with making as peripheral to, or incommensurate with, the core institutional logic of formal education. While participants showed inter- est in formalizing maker education, they generally concluded that making could not, and perhaps should not, be integral to school. The authors believe that the findings will help educators address these conflicts and cre- ate more sustainable, integrated, and authentic maker-based programs. 

   more » « less
5. Overt visual attention and value computation in complex risky choice

   Xinhao Fan, Jacob Elsey (December 2020, bioRxiv)

   Traditional models of decision making under uncertainty explain human behavior in simple situations with a minimal set of alternatives and attributes. Some of them, such as prospect theory, have been proven successful and robust in such simple situations. Yet, less is known about the preference formation during decision making in more complex cases. Furthermore, it is generally accepted that attention plays a role in the decision process but most theories make simplifying assumptions about where attention is deployed. In this study, we replace these assumptions by measuring where humans deploy overt attention, i.e. where they fixate. To assess the influence of task complexity, participants perform two tasks. The simpler of the two requires participants to choose between two alternatives with two attributes each (four items to consider). The more complex one requires a choice between four alternatives with four attributes each (16 items to consider). We then compare a large set of model classes, of different levels of complexity, by considering the dynamic interactions between uncertainty, attention and pairwise comparisons between attribute values. The task of all models is to predict what choices humans make, using the sequence of observed eye movements for each participant as input to the model. We find that two models outperform all others. The first is the two-layer leaky accumulator which predicts human choices on the simpler task better than any other model. We call the second model, which is introduced in this study, TNPRO. It is modified from a previous model from management science and designed to deal with highly complex decision problems. Our results show that this model performs well in the simpler of our two tasks (second best, after the accumulator model) and best for the complex task. Our results suggest that, when faced with complex choice problems, people prefer to accumulate preference based on attention-guided pairwise comparisons. 

   more » « less