Real‐World Correlates of Performance on Heuristics and Biases Tasks in a Community Sample

Abstract

In the current study, we sought to examine whether performance on several heuristics and biases tasks and thinking dispositions was associated with real‐life correlates in a community sample of adults. We examined performance on five heuristics and biases tasks (ratio bias, belief bias in syllogistic reasoning, cognitive reflection, probabilistic and statistical reasoning, and rational temporal discounting), three thinking dispositions (actively open‐minded thinking, future orientation, and avoidance of superstitious thinking), and a questionnaire assessing real‐world correlates in several domains (substance use, driving behavior, financial behavior, gambling behavior, electronic media use, and secure computing). Our heuristics and biases tasks and thinking disposition measures were modestly associated with several real‐world outcomes, including the domains of secure computing, financial behaviors, and the total scores. That is, better performance on the heuristics and biases measures was associated with fewer negative outcomes. We found that the associations were generally higher in males than in females. Heuristics and biases performance and thinking dispositions were unique predictors of real‐world outcomes after statistically controlling for educational attainment and sex differences. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Measuring Cognitive Reflection without Maths: Development and Validation of the Verbal Cognitive Reflection Test

“…To assess the construct validity of the Verbal CRT, we measured cognitive reflection (i.e., the Numerical CRT), cognitive ability and executive functions, working memory, thinking dispositions and numeracy. Prior research found weak to medium positive correlations between these measures and the Numerical CRT (Frederick, 2005;Liberali et al, 2012;Toplak et al, 2011Toplak et al, , 2014Toplak, West, & Stanovich, 2017). We expected to find similar correlation patterns for cognitive ability, working memory, executive functioning and thinking dispositions in terms of direction even though not necessarily of the same strength due to numeracy confounding the relationships with the Numerical CRT.…”

Distinguishing the Ratio Bias from Unsystematic Error: Situation and Individual‐difference Effects

“…The ratio bias represents a clear violation of one of the most basic assumptions of rational choice-invariance across normatively equivalent problem representations. The ratio bias can even cause people to favor options with strictly worse odds (Alonso & Fernández-Berrocal, 2003;Denes-Raj & Epstein, 1994;Yamagishi, 1997; but see Lefebvre, Vieider, & Villeval, 2011), and past studies have shown the ratio bias to be associated with a number of negative traits, such as superstitious thinking (Toplak, West, & Stanovich, 2016) and low numeracy (e.g., Peters et al, 2006). Given the ubiquity of the ratio bias, several theories have been used to explain it, including cognitive-experiential self-theory (CEST; e.g., Epstein, 2013), fuzzy-trace theory (FTT; e.g., Reyna & Brainerd, 2008), anchoring and adjustment (Yamagishi, 1997), and norm theory (Miller et al, 1989).…”

The sunk cost effect: short-term behavioural evidence in adults

“…Beyond the importance of finding behavioural evidence for a sunk cost effect, there is a broader push for observing whether decision-making heuristics and biases matter for real-world outcomes outside the laboratory context (Arkes, 2013;Toplak et al, 2017). As previously indicated the majority of the sunk cost effect is both laboratory based and hypothetical (with some naturalistic examples).…”

“…Recent research by Toplak, West, and Stanovich, (2017) highlighted that the majority of the evidence for decision-making biases come from laboratory studies where important outcomes are not actually observed. Indeed, like the sunk cost effect, many reasoning biases necessarily mean presenting a decision-making scenario and observing whether a person makes the optimal or correct choice.…”

“…A final goal of this study was to examine a possible reason for why participants might continue doing a task or not, in the short-term behavioural context. Previous literature has examined if factors such as decision-making competence, cognitive capacity or general cognitive ability predict whether or not people use heuristics or biases like framing, overconfidence, and sunk cost effect (Morsanyi & Handley, 2008;Parker & Fischhoff, 2005;Parker & Weller, 2015;Toplak, West, & Stanovich, 2017). Another factor that may be important for why people may continue to invest into something is risk-taking.…”