Reviewing the Papers

This is your first shot at a set of papers which you will be thinking about a lot in the next few weeks. This review will become the introduction to your research write up. We will have an extensive discussion of the papers over the next week.  After that discussion you will be expected to write up your review of the papers (approximately 3-4 typed double spaced pages).

First and foremost, explain the general idea being reviewed and why anyone should care about it. Why should anyone care about the tendency of people to reason irrationally about risk information? Here you may be helped by Bonner and Newell’s (2008) and Amsel et al.’s (2009) introductory paragraphs in which otherwise competent college students demonstrate irrational risk assessments in medical and gambling contexts. Focus a general question on why otherwise competent college students sometimes think irrationally about risks. Be sure to define key terms, such as rationality (following rules of logic and mathematics) and risk (possibility of a loss, injury, disease, or death).  

Second, in the next paragraph(s), begin with a discussion of our answer to the general question. Present Dual Process theory (see reviews in assigned papers) as accounting for irrational risk assessments by eliciting both experiential processes (automatic, spontaneous, and largely unconscious processing of information) and analytic processes (effortful, systematic, and largely conscious processing of information). The theory proposes that irrational reasoning about risk may be the result of the experiential predominance over analytic processing and that such predominance may be affected by internal (Metacognitive Status) and external (task context) factors.  

At this point, present your SHORT reviews of the research starting with Bonner and Newell’s (2008) test of Dual Process theory using the ratio-bias task.  Explain their task and the results, noting that participants’ tendency to make risk judgments on the basis of concrete frequency and not abstract ratio information confirms dual process theory. Also review Amsel et al. (2009, Study 1) who explored whether college students were aware of their irrational risks assessments. Explain the ratio-bias judgment task in which participants chose one of two equivalent gambles (1/10 vs. 10/100) and the ratio-bias evaluation task, in which participants rated their certainty from not at all (1) to very (4) sure that having a preference or having no preference was a rational response on the task. Note that only about a third of the sample demonstrated metacognitive competence (at least moderately sure that no preference was the only rational response pattern). Additionally discuss Amsel et al.’s (2008, Study 1) finding that optimal no preference ratio-bias judgments were predicted by metacognitive status but not ACT math scores. Finally, review Amsel et al.’s (2008, Study 3) evidence that optimal ratio-bias judgment rate was increased among participants completing the task from the Logical Person (62%) than Self (46%) perspective.
	
In the third section, summarize what we know from the literature review that bears on our question in the first paragraph. Irrational risk assessments are the result of dueling experiential and analytic systems which are strongly affected by internal metacognitive abilities, less strongly affected by external task factors, and unaffected by mathematical ability. Are you comfortable with these conclusions? One of many questions to addresses is whether there are better ways to potentially promote optimal performance than to request that participant think like a logical person.  On this last point, review Inbar et al.’s (2010) task-cuing hypothesis, which states that the more a task is framed as sequential, complex, and precise, the more participants will rely on analytic processing and respond optimally. They found (Inbar et al., 2010, Study 3) college students made significantly more optimal responses when randomly assigned to complete a ratio-biased judgment task as one of a set tasks required to earn an incentive (Sequential condition, 70%) than by itself (Holistic condition 38%). The finding suggests that task-cueing better promotes optimal ratio-bias judgments than did the perspective manipulation.  

For the fourth and final section, comment on what might be our best next step to test conditions which promote optimal performance on the ratio bias judgment task. This section is meant to be really short and speculative, as we will spend much of upcoming class discussing this issue in earnest. But in anticipation of that discussion, write a brief outline of a procedure (i.e., the questions you would ask etc.) which would systematically test dual process theory of college student irrational judgments on gambling tasks.