Search for: All records

In recent years, discussions comparing high-threshold and continuous accounts of recognition-memory judgments have increasingly turned their attention toward critical testing. One of the de ning features of this approach is its requirement for the relationship between theoretical assumptions and predictions to be laid out in a transparent and precise way. One of the (fortunate) consequences of this requirement is that it encourages researchers to debate the merits of the different assumptions at play. The present work addresses a recent attempt to overturn the dismissal of high-threshold models by getting rid of a background selective- in uence assumption. However, it can be shown that the contrast process proposed to explain this violation undermines a more general assumption that we dubbed“single-item generalization.” We argue that the case for the dismissal of these assumptions and the claimed support for the proposed high-threshold contrast account does not stand the scrutiny of their theoretical properties and empirical implications. 

In everyday life, people routinely make decisions that involve irredeemable risks such as death (e.g., while driving). Even though these decisions under extinction risk are common, practically important, and have different properties compared to the types of decisions typically studied by decision scientists, they have received little research attention. The present work advances the formal understanding of decision making under extinction risk by introducing a novel experimental paradigm, the Extinction Gambling Task (EGT). We derive optimal strategies for three different types of extinction and near-extinction events, and compare them to participants’ choices in three experiments. Leveraging computational modelling to describe strategies at the individual level, we document strengths and shortcomings in participants’ decisions under extinction risk. Specifically, we find that, while participants are relatively good in terms of the qualitative strategies they employ, their decisions are nevertheless affected by loss chasing, scope insensitivity, and opportunity cost neglect. We hope that by formalising decisions under extinction risk and providing a task to study them, this work will facilitate future research on an important topic that has been largely ignored. 

Evidence-accumulation models (EAMs) are powerful tools for making sense of human and animal decision-making behavior. EAMs have generated significant theoretical advances in psychology, behavioral economics, and cognitive neuroscience and are increasingly used as a measurement tool in clinical research and other applied settings. Obtaining valid and reliable inferences from EAMs depends on knowing how to establish a close match between model assumptions and features of the task/data to which the model is applied. However, this knowledge is rarely articulated in the EAM literature, leaving beginners to rely on the private advice of mentors and colleagues and inefficient trial-and-error learning. In this article, we provide practical guidance for designing tasks appropriate for EAMs, relating experimental manipulations to EAM parameters, planning appropriate sample sizes, and preparing data and conducting an EAM analysis. Our advice is based on prior methodological studies and the our substantial collective experience with EAMs. By encouraging good task-design practices and warning of potential pitfalls, we hope to improve the quality and trustworthiness of future EAM research and applications. 

Evidence accumulation models (EAMs) are powerful tools for making sense of human and animal decision-making behaviour. EAMs have generated significant theoretical advances in psychology, behavioural economics, and cognitive neuroscience, and are increasingly used as a measurement tool in clinical research and other applied settings. Obtaining valid and reliable inferences from EAMs depends on knowing how to establish a close match between model assumptions and features of the task/data to which the model is applied. However, this knowledge is rarely articulated in the EAM literature, leaving beginners to rely on the private advice of mentors and colleagues, and on inefficient trial-and-error learning. In this article, we provide practical guidance for designing tasks appropriate for EAMs, for relating experimental manipulations to EAM parameters, for planning appropriate sample sizes, and for preparing data and conducting an EAM analysis. Our advice is based on prior methodological studies and the authors’ substantial collective experience with EAMs. By encouraging good task design practices, and warning of potential pitfalls, we hope to improve the quality and trustworthiness of future EAM research and applications. 

Abstract Statistical modeling is generally meant to describe patterns in data in service of the broader scientific goal of developing theories to explain those patterns. Statistical models support meaningful inferences when models are built so as to align parameters of the model with potential causal mechanisms and how they manifest in data. When statistical models are instead based on assumptions chosen by default, attempts to draw inferences can be uninformative or even paradoxical—in essence, the tail is trying to wag the dog. These issues are illustrated by van Doorn et al. (this issue) in the context of using Bayes Factors to identify effects and interactions in linear mixed models. We show that the problems identified in their applications (along with other problems identified here) can be circumvented by using priors over inherently meaningful units instead of default priors on standardized scales. This case study illustrates how researchers must directly engage with a number of substantive issues in order to support meaningful inferences, of which we highlight two: The first is the problem of coordination , which requires a researcher to specify how the theoretical constructs postulated by a model are functionally related to observable variables. The second is the problem of generalization , which requires a researcher to consider how a model may represent theoretical constructs shared across similar but non-identical situations, along with the fact that model comparison metrics like Bayes Factors do not directly address this form of generalization. For statistical modeling to serve the goals of science, models cannot be based on default assumptions, but should instead be based on an understanding of their coordination function and on how they represent causal mechanisms that may be expected to generalize to other related scenarios. 

Abstract van Doorn et al. (2021) outlined various questions that arise when conducting Bayesian model comparison for mixed effects models. Seven response articles offered their own perspective on the preferred setup for mixed model comparison, on the most appropriate specification of prior distributions, and on the desirability of default recommendations. This article presents a round-table discussion that aims to clarify outstanding issues, explore common ground, and outline practical considerations for any researcher wishing to conduct a Bayesian mixed effects model comparison.