Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37676441›Full record

ArticlePsicologia, reflexao e critica : revista semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da UFRGS2023

Differences in decisions affected by cognitive biases: examining human values, need for cognition, and numeracy.

Regis K Kakinohana, Ronaldo Pilati

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psicologia, reflexao e critica : revista semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da UFRGS, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. [[Key Concepts in Pretest Probability Estimation]].Acta gastroenterologica Latinoamericana
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Regis K KakinohanaInstitute of Psychology, University of Brasilia, Brasilia, DF, 72910-000, Brazil. regis.kakinohana@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9337-8990
Ronaldo PilatiInstitute of Psychology, University of Brasilia, Brasilia, DF, 72910-000, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2982-5033

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A better understanding of factors that can affect preferences and choices may contribute to more accurate decision-making. Several studies have investigated the effects of cognitive biases on decision-making and their relationship with cognitive abilities and thinking dispositions. While studies on behaviour, attitude, personality, and health worries have examined their relationship with human values, research on cognitive bias has not investigated its relationship to individual differences in human values. The purpose of this study was to explore individual differences in biased choices, examining the relationships of the human values self-direction, conformity, power, and universalism with the anchoring effect, the framing effect, the certainty effect, and the outcome bias, as well as the mediation of need for cognition and the moderation of numeracy in these relationships. We measured individual differences and within-participant effects with an online questionnaire completed by 409 Brazilian participants, with an age range from 18 to 80 years, 56.7% female, and 43.3% male. The cognitive biases studied consistently influenced choices and preferences. However, the biases showed distinct relationships with the individual differences investigated, indicating the involvement of diverse psychological mechanisms. For example, people who value more self-direction were less affected only by anchoring. Hence, people more susceptible to one bias were not similarly susceptible to another. This can help in research on how to weaken or strengthen cognitive biases and heuristics.

Indexed as

BiasesDecisionsHuman valuesIndividual differencesNeed for cognitionNumeracy

Identifiers

PMID37676441
PMCPMC10485213

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.