Reversing the Cumulative Redundancy Bias to Demonstrate Metacognitive Flexibility in Cue Utilization

Abstract

The cumulative redundancy bias (CRB) refers to people’s difficulty to ignore the redundancy in cumulatively presented information. For instance, when people consider which of two teams is better, they should focus on the total number of points that each team has at the time. Yet, people are also influenced by the sequence of events that led to that accumulated score, such that if one team was ahead most of the season, people consider it better – even if those teams are currently tied. However, an opposite bias emerges when participants focus on performance trends (performance trend bias; PTB): When the trailing team is catching up to the leading team, people judge it as the better team – even if the other team is still ahead. In three experiments where we manipulated slope magnitude, we obtained both effects: the PTB was observed when the slope was big; the CRB emerged when the slope was small. These studies demonstrate a striking malleability of the cognitive system, flexibly weighing different cues. Results are discussed in terms of metacognitive regulation.

Emotional Campaigning in Politics: Being Moved and Anger in Political Ads Motivate to Support Candidate and Party

“…Lastly, a growing literature on examining the cognitive antecedents of evaluating leading vs. trailing political candidates (e.g., Alves and Mata, 2019 ; Grüning et al, 2021 ) raises the question of how this feature of an election may affect emotion evocation and motivational effects. Potentially, the evocation of being moved is especially pronounced for a political party that is behind in votes because this situation accentuates the problem that has to be overcome by working together.…”

More than two intuitions

“…We recognize De Neys's call for research on cases with more than two competing intuitions, but we disagree with his emphasis. Research on cue usage and information integration (e.g., Candolin, 2003; Grüning, Alves, Mata, & Fiedler, in press; Gunes, Piccardi, & Pantic, 2008; Plessner, Schweizer, Brand, & O'Hare, 2009) shows that multiple intuitions are the norm in decision making. Although novel situations may end in deliberation because intuitions are missing, familiar situations offer a rich range of different cues (e.g., color, availability, smell, and nutrition value) supporting the rise of multiple intuitions in the decision maker's mind.…”

More than two intuitions

“…We recognize De Neys's call for research on cases with more than two competing intuitions, but we disagree with his emphasis. Research on cue utilization and information integration (e.g., Candolin, 2003;Cooksey, 1996;Gunes et al, 2008;Grüning et al, 2021;Plessner et al, 2009) shows that multiple intuitions are the norm in decision-making. Whereas novel situations may end in deliberation because intuitions are missing, familiar situations offer a rich range of different cues (e.g., color, availability, smell, and nutrition value) supporting the rise of multiple intuitions in the decision-maker's mind.…”