Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Reposted by Kiri Kuroda

Dirk Wulff @dirkwulff.bsky.social · 1d

🚨 New article 🚨

Excited to share this article, presenting a full tutorial on mouse tracking and other movement tracking techniques in psychological research, with examples from our R package mousetrap.

Paper: link.springer.com/article/10.3...
R package: pascalkieslich.github.io/mousetrap/in...

5 8

Reposted by Kiri Kuroda

Center for Adaptive Rationality (MPIB, Berlin) @arc-mpib.bsky.social · Sep 5

🍎 Do we really make 200 food decisions a day? In our latest podcast, Almudena Claassen @mpib-berlin.bsky.social reveals why that catchy number is flawed—and what really matters when studying eating habits. It's not about "magic numbers", but about context.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuDO...

2 4

Reposted by Kiri Kuroda

Samuel Aeschbach @aeschbach.bsky.social · Aug 12

New semantic network paper in @plosone.org with @ruimata.bsky.social at @unibas.ch and @dirkwulff.bsky.social at @arc-mpib.bsky.social!

We ran large-scale simulations to test how well common behavioral tasks measure a person's semantic network.

doi.org/10.1371/jour...

Measuring individual semantic networks: A simulation study

Accurately capturing individual differences in semantic networks is fundamental to advancing our mechanistic understanding of semantic memory. Past empirical attempts to construct individual-level sem...

doi.org

1 4 9

Reposted by Kiri Kuroda

Ezequiel Lopez-Lopez @eloplop.bsky.social · Jul 28

New research out!🚨

In our new paper, we discuss how generative AI (GenAI) tools like ChatGPT can mediate confirmation bias in health information seeking.
As people turn to these tools for health-related queries, new risks emerge.
🧵👇
nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...

NYAS Publications

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) applications, such as ChatGPT, are transforming how individuals access health information, offering conversational and highly personalized interactions. Whi...

nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com

1 9 15

Reposted by Kiri Kuroda

Center for Adaptive Rationality (MPIB, Berlin) @arc-mpib.bsky.social · Jul 22

🚨We are seeking a student assistant to support web programming @mpib-berlin.bsky.social (Deadline: August 15)

There are also opportunities to work with eye tracking, EEG, VR, 3D printing, and scientific computing.

See the link for more details!👇
www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/2110361/2025...

Studentische Hilfskraft im Bereich Web-Programmierung | Forschungsbereich Adaptive Rationalität

www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de

1 4 5

Kiri Kuroda @kirikuroda.bsky.social · Jul 16

I truly appreciate all the supports from the Center for Adaptive Rationality at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development (@arc-mpib.bsky.social & @mpib-berlin.bsky.social).

And great thanks to the co-authores, Alan Tump (@alantump.bsky.social) & Ralf Kurvers (@ralfkurvers.bsky.social)!

Kiri Kuroda @kirikuroda.bsky.social · Jul 16

6/ 💡Even subtle individual differences—like how fast you decide—shape how social decisions unfold.

⌛Our study suggests the importance of going beyond the paradigm of passively using social info and focusing on the timing and speed of judgement in group decision-making.

🔗 doi.org/10.1098/rspb...

Individual differences in speed–accuracy trade-off influence social decision-making in dyads | Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Speed–accuracy trade-offs are a fundamental aspect of decision-making, requiring individuals to balance collecting more information against making faster decisions. Although speed–accuracy trade-offs ...

doi.org

1

Kiri Kuroda @kirikuroda.bsky.social · Jul 16

5/ People adapted to this social situation.

💡🐢Slow people relied less on the fast ones.

💡🐇Fast people relied more on the slower ones and became a bit more cautious.

Our experiment and simulations show that pairs performed as well as individuals. These results suggest flexible use of social-info.

Figure 4. Social drift rate and simulation results. (a) Social drift rates and within-pair differences in thresholds. Fitted lines indicate the mean conditional effects (solid line indicates credible effect; dashed line indicates non-credible effect); shaded areas indicate the 95% uncertainty intervals of the mean. (b) Simulated individual accuracy as a function of social drift rate. Error bars indicate the standard errors of the means. (c) Simulated individual accuracy as a function of within-pair difference in threshold, social drift rate and the lower threshold in a pair. White dots and dashed spline curves indicate the optimal social drift rates (y-axis).

1

Kiri Kuroda @kirikuroda.bsky.social · Jul 16

4/ What did we find?

🐇Fast (but less accurate) people often decided first and set the tone.

🐢Slower (but more accurate) people followed.

Social accuracy depended on the faster person, not the better-informed one. So, did the pair's accuracy get worse ...?

👉But here's the twist:

Figure 2. Individual differences in the personal condition. (a) Mean individual response time (RT) and accuracy in the personal condition. Each dot represents one participant. The blue line indicates the locally estimated scatterplot smoothing (LOESS); the shaded area indicates the 95% confidence interval. (b) Participants’ personal drift rates and thresholds in the personal condition. Each dot represents one participant. (c) Predicted individual accuracy. Colours represent predicted individual accuracy from 1000 simulations for each combination of threshold and personal drift rate. See panel b for legend. (d) Predicted mean individual response times. Colours represent the predicted mean individual response time from 1000 simulations.

Figure 3. Pairs' mean accuracy and drift–diffusion model (DDM) parameters. (a) Individual accuracy in the personal and social conditions. (b) Accuracy of second decisions in a pair. Each dot indicates a participant but can be based on a different number of underlying trials. (c,d) Probability of being the leader and within-pair difference in (c) threshold and (d) personal drift rate. (e,f ) Leaders’ accuracy as a function of higher and lower (e) thresholds and (f ) personal drift rates in a pair. (g,h) Pairs’ mean accuracy as a function of higher and lower (g) thresholds and (h) personal drift rates in a pair. In panels c–h, fitted lines indicate the mean conditional effects (solid line = credible effect; dashed line = non-credible effect); shaded areas indicate the 95% uncertainty intervals of the mean.

1

Kiri Kuroda @kirikuroda.bsky.social · Jul 16

3/ 🧑‍💻To address this, we ran an online study, where people made perceptual judgments while seeing their partner's choice in real time and making use of it.

📈We used drift–diffusion models to capture how competent and cautious each person was and how much they relied on their partner's social info.

Figure 1. Task and drift–diffusion models (DDMs). (a) Trial flow. (b) Illustration of the DDM. (c) Illustration of the social DDM (SDDM) with two individuals. Non-decision time is omitted from panels (b) and (c) for simplicity.

1

Kiri Kuroda @kirikuroda.bsky.social · Jul 16

2/ Decision-making often involves a speed–accuracy trade-off. This exists in many animal species, but we rarely ask:

👉 What happens when people with different decision-making styles work together and can use social information from others in real time?

1

Kiri Kuroda @kirikuroda.bsky.social · Jul 16

"Individual differences in speed–accuracy trade-off influence social decision-making in dyads"

🚨Our paper has been published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B doi.org/10.1098/rspb...

w/ Alan Tump @alantump.bsky.social, Ralf Kurvers @ralfkurvers.bsky.social

@royalsocietypublishing.org

1/ 🧵👇

Abstract: Speed–accuracy trade-offs are a fundamental aspect of decision-making, requiring individuals to balance collecting more information against making faster decisions. Although speed–accuracy trade-offs have been studied at the individual level, their role in human decision-making in social settings remains poorly understood—even though faster, and possibly more error-prone, decisions often have more social influence than slower decisions. We examined how individual differences in speed–accuracy trade-off preferences shape decision-making in pairs, using an interactive online experiment and drift–diffusion modelling. Participants first performed a perceptual task alone, allowing us to estimate their individual drift rates and decision thresholds, the key cognitive determinants of speed–accuracy trade-off preferences. They then performed the task in pairs, sharing decisions in real-time. Pair accuracy depended on the faster (and thus more error-prone) member, and not on the slower (but more accurate) member. Social decisions were not worse than individual ones because faster members increased their thresholds in the social condition and became more accurate, while slower members incorporated less social information. These findings show that individuals adjusted their social information use to the speed–accuracy trade-off preferences of their partners, highlighting the importance of such individual differences for understanding social behaviour.

2 11 33

Reposted by Kiri Kuroda

Ana Sofia Morais @anasofiamorais.bsky.social · Jul 10

We've wrapped the first run of Unraveling Behavior! 🎙️ Now planning next steps—your feedback helps shape the future + funding.
👉 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝘃𝗲𝘆: survey.academiccloud.de/index.php/25...

3 3

Reposted by Kiri Kuroda

Simon Ciranka @simyciri.bsky.social · Jun 25

🤩IT'S A PREPRINT 😍
Adolescents' social sensitivity isn't a bad thing—it's adaptive! In our new study, led by amazing Andrea Gradassi @connectedmindslab.bsky.social, we show that teens learned to copy successful peers faster than adults in a new multiplayer exploration task.
osf.io/preprints/os...

3 11 27

Reposted by Kiri Kuroda

Ana Sofia Morais @anasofiamorais.bsky.social · May 20

Nudging has shaped behavioral policy for years—but what are its downsides? In our latest episode, 𝐑𝐚𝐥𝐩𝐡 𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐰𝐢𝐠 makes the case for shifting from nudging to 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠—an alternative behavioral science approach that fosters people’s agency, self-control, and decision-making skills. tinyurl.com/3yvfwxc8

7 10

Reposted by Kiri Kuroda

Anna Thoma @annaithoma.bsky.social · Apr 10

1/n 🆕📄: How do children learn to adapt to different environments when making repeated choices? And what do cognitive immaturity and probability matching have to do with it? Our new article explores how kids & adults differ in probability learning across statistical task structures: mpib.berlin/R3RFy

APA PsycNet

psycnet.apa.org

1 11 19

Reposted by Kiri Kuroda

Philipp Lorenz-Spreen @lorenzspreen.bsky.social · Mar 13

Very happy supervisor with the publication of Pietro Nickl's article on global trends in online headlines:

www.nature.com/articles/s41...

The evolution of online news headlines - Humanities and Social Sciences Communications

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications - The evolution of online news headlines

www.nature.com

15 32

Reposted by Kiri Kuroda

Center for Adaptive Rationality (MPIB, Berlin) @arc-mpib.bsky.social · Mar 6

🚨New paper: Chimpanzees explore just like us! 🐵🔍

Lou Haux @mpib-berlin.bsky.social shows that chimpanzees adapt their exploration strategies to changes in the environment—exploring more in unstable conditions. Now out in Nature Communications @naturecomms.bsky.social

www.nature.com/articles/s41...

Chimpanzees adapt their exploration to key properties of the environment - Nature Communications

Exploration helps reduce uncertainty in daily life, but the evolutionary roots of adaptive exploration are unclear. Here, the authors show that chimpanzees, like humans, tailor their exploration depen...

www.nature.com

1 13 29

Reposted by Kiri Kuroda

Ana Sofia Morais @anasofiamorais.bsky.social · Mar 4

New episode of 𝐔𝐧𝐫𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐁𝐞𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐫 is live!🎙️

In this episode, I'm joined by @simyciri.bsky.social as we dive into why teens engage in risky behaviors—not out of recklessness, but due to a complex mix of developmental, social, and environmental factors.

tinyurl.com/bdcn2b4r

How Brains, Peers, and Environments Fuel Risky Behaviors in Teens

tinyurl.com

11 17

Reposted by Kiri Kuroda

Center for Adaptive Rationality (MPIB, Berlin) @arc-mpib.bsky.social · Feb 28

Just over one week left to apply for this year's Summer Institute on Bounded Rationality!

Applications close midnight (Berlin time) next Sunday, March 9, 2025, so don't delay if you want to take part in an unforgettable experience this summer in Berlin!

www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/research/res...

Summer Institute

www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de

1 10 14

Reposted by Kiri Kuroda

Center for Adaptive Rationality (MPIB, Berlin) @arc-mpib.bsky.social · Feb 19

In case you missed our previous post:

We're back!! 🥳

Applications for the 22nd Summer Institute on Bounded Rationality are now open!

Join us in Berlin from June 17–25, 2025 to explore "Decision Making in a Digital World".

Details in the link below👇
www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/research/res...

Summer Institute

www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de

3 6

Reposted by Kiri Kuroda

Center for Adaptive Rationality (MPIB, Berlin) @arc-mpib.bsky.social · Feb 4

🚨 Applications for the 22nd Summer Institute on Bounded Rationality are now open!

🌐 Join us in Berlin @mpib-berlin.bsky.social from June 17–25, 2025 to explore "Decision Making in a Digital World".

✏️ Application deadline is March 9 - more info at 👇!!

www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/research/res...

Summer Institute

www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de

26 27

Reposted by Kiri Kuroda

Max Planck Institute for Human Development @mpib-berlin.bsky.social · Jan 31

🔍 Big decisions, uncertain futures—how do we choose? Our latest podcast episode dives into transformative life decisions with Shahar Hechtlinger and @anasofiamorais.bsky.social — both from @arc-mpib.bsky.social. Listen now! 🎧 #DecisionMaking
www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/1956201/unra...

The Psychology of Life's Most Important Decisions

www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de

4 7

Reposted by Kiri Kuroda

Stefan Herzog @stefanherzog.bsky.social · Jan 23

🌟🧠💪📝
#BOOSTING: Empowering citizens with behavioral science

New, freely available paper in Annual Review of Psychology.
PDF: tinyurl.com/boosting2025

For more: scienceofboosting.org

@arc-mpib.bsky.social @mpib-berlin.bsky.social

@annualreviews.bsky.social
#policy #behavioralscience

1/ 🧵👇

The image is the cover page of an article from the "Annual Review of Psychology" titled "Boosting: Empowering Citizens with Behavioral Science" by Stefan M. Herzog and Ralph Hertwig. It features a brief abstract, keywords, and publication details. The abstract outlines the concept of "boosting" as a behavioral public policy that emphasizes empowering individuals to make informed decisions, in contrast to "nudging," which subtly steers behavior. The abstract reads:

Behavioral public policy came to the fore with the introduction of nudging, which aims to steer behavior while maintaining freedom of choice. Responding to critiques of nudging (e.g., that it does not promote agency and relies on benevolent choice architects), other behavioral policy approaches focus on empowering citizens. Here we review boosting, a behavioral policy approach that aims to foster people's agency, self-control, and ability to make informed decisions. It is grounded in evidence from behavioral science showing that human decision making is not as notoriously flawed as the nudging approach assumes. We argue that addressing the challenges of our time—such as climate change, pandemics, and the threats to liberal democracies and human autonomy posed by digital technologies and choice architectures—calls for fostering capable and engaged citizens as a first line of response to complement slower, systemic approaches.

List with summary points:

1. Behavioral public policy garnered widespread attention with the introduction of nudging, which aims to steer behavior while maintaining freedom of choice.
2. Criticisms of nudging include that it does not promote agency and competences and that it relies—overly optimistically—on the presence of benevolent choice architects.
3. The proliferation of environments threatening people's autonomy, the slow pace of systemic approaches to tackling societal issues, and the intrinsic benefits of empowerment make empowering citizens an indispensable objective of behavioral public policy.
4. Boosting is a behavioral public policy approach to empowerment grounded in evidence from behavioral science that shows that humans’ boundedly rational decision making is not as flawed as the nudging approach assumes.
5. Boosts are interventions that improve people's competencies to make informed choices that conform to their goals, preferences, and desires.
6. In self-nudging boosts, people learn to use architectural changes in their proximate choice environment to regulate their own behavior—that is, they are empowered to adapt their own choice environments.
7. There are boosts to foster core competences in many domains, including finance, online environments, and health, as well as broader, overarching areas, such as motivation, risk, and judgment and decision making. Boosts should be part of a policy mix that also includes system-level approaches.
8. When implementing boosts, policy makers need to avoid the trap of individualizing responsibility and to be mindful that, due to differences in cognition and motivation, inequalities in the desirable effects across boosted individuals may emerge.

2 41 93

Reposted by Kiri Kuroda

Center for Adaptive Rationality (MPIB, Berlin) @arc-mpib.bsky.social · Jan 6

🎙️ New Episode!

ARC's Shahar Hechtlinger talks about transformative life decisions—becoming a parent, changing careers, or moving abroad. This episode gives you simple strategies and real-life examples to navigate the decisions.

#Podcast #UnravBehavior

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKEK...

Shahar Hechtlinger: The Psychology of Life's Most Important Decisions

YouTube video by Unraveling Behavior

www.youtube.com

4 8