1,721,251 research outputs found
Can we reliably measure cognitive effort? On the relation of implicit and explicit cognitive effort scales and tasks.
Full text linkWe tend to choose the action that is least demanding however measuring individual differences in the cost of cognitive effort can be elusive. We here report a set of five studies studying the relationship between four cognitive effort measures: the demand selection task, the cognitive effort discounting paradigm, a rationality battery to assess deliberate reasoning, and the Need for Cognition scale. We also measured working memory capacity in four studies. Subjective effort with the NASA task load index was measured in three studies. Need for Cognition was positively associated with effort spent in the cognitive effort discounting paradigm, and was also positively associated with deliberate reasoning, but there was no association with demand avoidance in the demand selection task. Working memory capacity was not related to Need for Cognition, demand avoidance or cognitive effort discounting but to deliberate reasoning. We conclude that the tasks may not measure the same latent cognitive effort construct. We discuss task-sensitivity in measuring cognitive effort, and the necessity to control for cognitive abilities
Psychotic-like experiences and analytical thinking style
No full textdata files to publication: Are Psychotic Experiences Related to Poorer Reflective Reasoning
Risk evaluation during and after physical activity
No full textAvalanche decision-making is complex. One rarely knows how safe it is. There are very safe conditions (danger level 1) and very unsafe conditions (danger level 4 and 5).
A) Is risk judgement different after intensive physical activity and during physical activity?
B) Is information sampling driven by uncertainty reduction
Replication Studies & Open Science
No full textIn this episode, we talk about the reproducibility crisis and how one can use Open Science as an environment for creating proper replication studies. Our guest is Gerit Pfuhl, associate professor in psychology at UiT The Arctic University of Norway. She shares her experience with using the Open Science Framework (OSF) in her project "The Collaborative Replications and Education Project (CREP)".
You can read more about her project and their experience here. You can also follow the open CREP-project here.
The host of this episode is Erik Lieungh.
This episode was first published 28 March 2019
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Investment in search jackdaws+humans
No full textMetacognitive assessment using post-decisional wagering, data from two jackdaws and nine human
- …
