skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Search for: All records

Creators/Authors contains: "Neal, Tess"

Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher. Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?

Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.

  1. Three studies (1 survey, 2 experiments) examine cognitive biases in the professional judgments of nationally-representative samples of psychologists working in legal contexts. Study 1 (N= 84) demonstrates robust evidence of the bias blind spot (Pronin, Lin, & Ross, 2002) in experts’ judgments. Psychologists rated their own susceptibility to bias in their professional work lower than their colleagues (and laypeople). As expected, they perceived bias mitigating procedures as more threatening to their own domain than outside domains, and more experience was correlated with higher perceived threat of bias mitigating procedures. Experimental studies 2 (N=118) & 3 (N=128) with randomly-selected psychologists reveals psychologists overwhelmingly engage in confirmation bias (93% with one decision opportunity in study 1, and 90%, 87%, and 82% across three decision opportunities in study 2). Cognitive reflection was negatively correlated with confirmation bias. Psychologists were also susceptible to order effects in that the order of symptoms presented affected their diagnoses–even though the same symptoms existed in the different scenarios (in opposite orders). 
    more » « less
  2. Abstract Journal editors have a large amount of power to advance open science in their respective fields by incentivising and mandating open policies and practices at their journals. The Data PASS Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, an online community for social science journal editors:www.dpjedi.org) has collated several resources on embedding open science in journal editing (www.dpjedi.org/resources). However, it can be overwhelming as an editor new to open science practices to know where to start. For this reason, we created a guide for journal editors on how to get started with open science. The guide outlines steps that editors can take to implement open policies and practices within their journal, and goes through the what, why, how, and worries of each policy and practice. This manuscript introduces and summarizes the guide (full guide:https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hstcx). 
    more » « less