Copyright
J. A. Weller et al.
415
Copyright
416
plan, suppress incorrect or inappropriate prepotent responses, and regulate emotionrelated behaviors (Eisenberg
et al., 1996).
Developmental research has linked individual differences
in effortful control to poor reallife decision making. For
instance, effortful control and related traits have been
associated with academic performance and school readiness,
emotional regulation, social competence and moral behavior,
as well as both internalizing (e.g., social withdrawal) and
externalizing behaviors (e.g., aggression, delinquency; Blair,
2002; Eisenberg, Smith, Sadovsky, & Spinrad, 2004;
Kochanska et al., 1996; Lengua, 2003; MacDonald, 2008;
Olson, Sameroff, Kerr, Lopez, & Wellman, 2005; Romer,
2010; Rothbart & Ahadi, 1994; Tangeney, Baumeister, &
Boone, 2004; Valiente, LemeryChalfant, & Castro, 2007).
Moreover, the effortful control temperament dimension is
believed to be a precursor to behavioral disinhibition (versus
constraint), (low) agreeableness, and (low) conscientiousness
in adulthood (e.g., Dindo, McDadeMontez, Sharma, Watson,
& Clark, 2009; JensenCampbell et al., 2002; Rothbart, 2007),
traits that have been associated with greater incidence of
promiscuous sexual behavior, antisocial tendencies, and
substance abuse (e.g., Frick, Kuper, Silverthorn, & Cotter,
1995; McGue, Slutske, Taylor, & Iacono, 1997; Miller &
Lynam, 2003). Given the strong association between effortful
control and reallife consequences linked to maladaptive
decision making, we predicted that greater effortful control
would be associated with stronger performance on our DMC
measures.
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 110 children ranging between 10 and
11 years of age (median = 10.58 years). Nine children were
removed because they either did not complete the second
half of the study or they had not completed sections of the
survey. For this study, parents (n = 108; two adults were
parents of two children) completed temperament ratings of
their child and other tasks unrelated to the current study.
Data for the parents of the nine children who were dropped
were also deleted.
Materials
The current battery used to determine preadolescent
decisionmaking competence (PADMC) involved components taken from Parker and Fischhoffs (2005) and Bruine
de Bruin et al.s (2007) use of classic decision problems in
their young adult (YDMC) and adult DMC (ADMC)
measures. These components included Resistance to
Framing, Under/Overcondence, Applying Decision Rules,
Consistency in Risk Perception, and Resistance to Sunk
Costs; each of which has been shown to be predictive of
realworld decisions and behaviors of younger and older
adults. We chose to omit two measures used in the YDMC
and the ADMC, Recognizing Social Norms and Path
Independence. We decided to omit Path Independence
because of the poor external validity previously demonstrated in other studies. We chose to omit the Recognizing Social
Norms scale because we wanted to focus on measures that
were more closely related to classic judgment and decision
making (JDM) paradigms. Further, including only the ve
chosen measures helped allay concerns regarding participant
fatigue. These measures were converted for use with
preadolescents by substituting topics familiar and germane
to children such as choosing between teaching methods,
evaluating videogame systems, and answering simple
geographic questions. Pretesting was conducted to determine
whether reading level and basic comprehension of the tasks
at hand adequately matched the comprehension abilities of
the sample. Items of questionable reading level were
subsequently modied. Further, the participants completed
practice items for the Applying Decision Rules, Consistency
in Risk Perception, and Under/Overcondence scales. Items
that did not add to the internal consistency of the
corresponding component scale were removed from subsequent analyses. The revised components included in the
current battery are discussed in the succeeding paragraphs
(see Appendix A for sample items).1
Interested readers should contact the authors for any of the materials
developed for use in the current study.
J. A. Weller et al.
Resistance to framing
This measure represents the extent to which the same
objective decision scenario evokes the same response,
regardless of the valence of the frame. This measure
consisted of six framing problems. Consistent with the
categories proposed by Levin, Schneider, and Gaeth
(1998), three of these problems involved risky choice
framing (e.g., choosing between two options differing in
riskiness for dealing with the threat to an endangered
species, where the potential outcomes are framed either
positively in terms of animals saved or negatively in
terms of animals lost) and three items involved attribute
framing (e.g., rating the effectiveness of a cold remedy
described alternatively as curing 75% of the people taking
it or not curing 25% of the people). Following Levin
et al. (2002), each participant received both positive and
negative versions of each framing scenario, with one
version received in a rst session and the other received in
a second session at least 1 week later. The participants rated
their degree of preference for the risky or riskless option in
the risky choiceframing problem so that numerical scores
on a sixpoint scale (1 = denitely choose option A,
6 = denitely choose option B) were comparable for all
framing problems. Performance was determined by the
mean absolute difference in response to the two versions of
the same problem, with no mean absolute difference
indicating complete resistance to framing. We reversed
the sign so that large framing effects were denoted by high
negative scores.
Under/overcondence
This task measures how accurately the participants assess the
extent of their own knowledge. The participants answered
a series of 18 true/false general knowledge questions and
then rated their condence from 50% (just guessing) to 100%
(absolutely sure). Questions included items such as Alaska
was the last state to become part of the U.S. Under/
Overcondence, as a measure of DMC, was operationalized
as one minus the absolute difference between mean condence and percentage correct across items so that higher
scores reect better performance.
417
Effortful control
The participants and their parents completed the selfreport
version of the Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire
Revised (EATQR; Ellis & Rothbart, 2001), which is a
revision of Capaldi and Rothbarts (1992) original EATQ,
designed to assess individual differences in temperament
for children between the ages of 9 and 15 years. Parents
completed a parallel caregiver version in which they were
asked to reect on the childs behaviors and dispositions.
The current study utilized three of these temperament
subscales that comprise the broader effortful control
dimension: activation control (I have a hard time nishing
things on time), attention focusing (I pay close attention
when someone tells me how to do something), and
inhibitory control (When someone tells me to stop doing
something, it is easy for me to stop) for a total of 16 items.
Both the participants and their parents rated these questions
on a scale from 1 (almost always untrue of you/your child) to
5 (almost always true of you/your child). Cronbachs alpha for
these scales ranged from 0.52 to 0.80, largely consistent with
prior research (Ellis & Rothbart, 2001; Muris & Meesters,
2009). The superordinate factor of effortful control was
derived by creating a composite score using these subscales.
Parental ratings of the child and childs selfratings on the
temperament scales were signicantly correlated, ranging
from r = 0.27 to 0.40, p < 0.001 (correlations ranged from 0.41
J. Behav. Dec. Making, 25: 414426 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/bdm
418
Schoolrelated behaviors
As part of a larger project, each child was asked to self
report the frequency of four commonly occurring behaviors
in school (e.g., received the top grade in class, been called to
the principals ofce because of bad behavior) over the past
month. All frequency ratings for the behaviors were made on
a fourpoint scale (1 = zero times; 2 = one time; 3 = two to ve
times; 4 = six or more times).2
Procedure
Two sessions, separated by approximately 7 and 14 days,
were administered to each childparent pair. Each pair was
paid $30 for completing both sessions. The parent and the
child were in different rooms during each session, and each
was assured that their responses would be kept condential,
including keeping them from their child/parent. Parental
participation included material for a separate study, but,
crucially, parents supplied ratings of child temperament to
complement childrens selfratings. Each session took
between about 45 and 60 min to complete, and all parents
agreed to be contacted at a future date for a followup
(longitudinal) study.
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for each of the
PADMC component measures. Each component measure
yielded comparable internal reliability to that of the YDMC
and the ADMC. Compared with the YDMC, the alpha
coefcients were better for Resisting Sunk Costs and
Resistance to Framing and similar to Consistency in Risk
Perception and Under/Overcondence. Similarly, compared
with the ADMC, although the reported alphas were
generally lower, the average mean interitem correlations
for the PADMC measures were consistent with those
observed for the ADMC component measures, r = 0.15 to
0.24 versus r = 0.09 to 0.25, respectively.3 Hence, compared
with the ADMC, the lower level of coefcient alpha
Note that we initially included a wider range of behaviors in the study, such
as items related to health and safety (e.g., smoking cigarettes, wearing seat
belts). However, many of these behaviors had extremely low or no variance.
Thus, we focus here on the behaviors from domains that held some degree
of variability and that we believed were most theoretically related to DMC
in our preadolescent sample (i.e., schoolrelated behaviors).
3
Because the mean interitem correlations were not reported in Bruine de
Bruin et al. (2007), we estimated these correlations by using Cronbachs
alpha formula, which states that alpha is a function of both the number of
items and the mean interitem correlation.
Copyright
J. A. Weller et al.
419
# items
Minimum
Maximum
Median
Mean
Standard deviation
6
6
6
18
3
0.00
3.33
2.00
0.54
4.00
6.00
0.00
6.00
1.00
18.00
4.00
1.33
6.00
0.86
9.00
4.20
1.35
5.42
0.85
9.72
1.26
0.67
0.95
0.11
3.17
0.50
0.41
0.53
0.79
0.25
2. Resistance to Framing
0.30**
3. Consistency in Risk
0.28** 0.28**
Perception
4. Under/Overcondence
0.26** 0.24** 0.25*
Fiveindicator
model (SE)
0.60
0.47
0.55
0.43
0.32
(0.13)
(0.13)
(0.10)
(0.11)
(0.15)
Fourindicator
model (SE)
0.55 (0.14)
0.53 (0.13)
0.52 (0.11)
0.47 (0.11)
Note. Loadings p < 0.001, except for Resistance to Sunk Costs in the ve
indicator model ( p = 0.034).
SE, standard error.
We conducted parallel analyses with the other EATQR scales that were
assessed as part of a larger project (fear, frustration, perceptual sensitivity,
shyness, and surgency). We did not nd any systematic associations
between the DMC measures and any of these EATQR scales.
Additionally, we investigated the correlations between DMC scales and
the parent and child ratings separately (as opposed to the aggregate
measure). We did not observe any evidence for systematic differences
between the parent and child selfratings on the effortful control dimension
that would change the interpretation of our results. Thus, we do not discuss
this issue further.
420
Table 4. Correlations between Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire effortful control and decisionmaking competence
EATQ scale
Effortful control
Attention focusing
Activation control
Inhibitory control
DMC
Applying Decision
Rules
Resistance to
Framing
Consistency in Risk
Perception
Under/Overconfidence
Resistance to
Sunk Costs
0.28**
0.16+
0.09
0.38***
0.18*
0.03
0.03
0.26**
0.25**
0.12
0.05
0.33***
0.18*
0.11
0.13+
0.26**
0.14+
0.19*
0.03
0.17*
0.00
0.04
0.02
0.16*
Note: +p < 0.10, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, one tailed.
EATQ, Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire; DMC, decisionmaking competence.
DISCUSSION
This study extends earlier work on childrens reasoning in
several ways. First, standard measures used to dene DMC
in 18 to 19yearolds and adults can be modied and
reliably applied to children as young as 10 years old to assess
systematic differences in behavioral decision making.
Moreover, the underlying structure of preadolescents
responses to the various JDM measures was comparable
with what previous research had found in adolescents and
adults (Bruine de Bruin et al., 2007; Parker & Fischhoff,
2005). Second, we found evidence that individual differences in effortful control, a temperament dimension
associated with selfregulative processes, were associated
Copyright
J. A. Weller et al.
421
SE
Lower
Upper
0.53**
1.11**
0.26
0.48
0.09
0.16
1.04
2.10
R2
0.13
0.23
0.63**
1.99***
0.29
0.58
1.19
3.12
0.07
0.85
0.37**
0.29
0.19
0.33
0.01
0.93
0.74
0.35
1.20***
1.53+
0.39
1.00
0.06
0.27
Note. A logistic regression was conducted for the behavior item, Called to principals ofce because of bad behavior. Odds ratios = 0.30 and 0.22 for DMC
and effortful control, respectively. R2 value denotes Nagelkerke pseudoR2 estimate.
+
p < 0.10, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, one tailed.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
We believe that the current research offers a unique look into
the decisionmaking abilities of preadolescents. We do
acknowledge certain limitations of the current study and
offer suggestions for future research endeavors. First,
because of time constraints, the actual tasks that we used
in the study represent a subset of the range of JDM tasks
previously assessed in the ADMC and the YDMC. For
example, at the individual scale level, we measured
consistency in risk perception in terms of basic time frame
subset (e.g., probability of getting injured in the next month
versus in the next year). In contrast, the ADMC included
items that assessed more intricate timeframe consistency
judgments involving both nested subsets (e.g., dying in a
terrorist attack is a subset of the superset dying from any
cause) and ones involving complementary events (e.g.,
getting into a car accident while driving versus being accident
free). We speculate that the inclusion of such items would
have increased the range of difculty on the measure. At a
more global level, we chose to omit the Path Independence
and Recognizing Social Norms measures from our PADMC
assessment. Inclusion of all scales would have allowed us to
test an alternative twofactor solution, one with two correlated
factors: a primary factor similar to the one reported in the
current study and a second factor on which Recognizing
Social Norms and Resisting Sunk Costs both positively
J. Behav. Dec. Making, 25: 414426 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/bdm
422
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to gratefully acknowledge support from the
National Science Foundation, Grant SES 0721103. We would
like to also thank Grazyna Kochanska and Michael Chmielewski
for their comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.
Additionally, we would like to thank Leisha Whareld and
Maggie Eliot for their help with manuscript preparation.
REFERENCES
Ahadi, S. A., Rothbart, M. K., & Ye, R. (1993). Childrens
temperament in the U.S. and China: Similarities and differences.
European Journal of Personality, 7, 359378.
Arkes, H. R., & Ayton, P. (1999). The sunk cost and Concorde
effects: Are humans less rational than lower animals?
Psychological Bulletin, 125, 591600.
Blair, C. (2002). School readiness: Integrating cognition and
emotion in a neurobiological conceptualization of childrens
functioning at school entry. The American Psychologist, 57,
111127.
Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2007).
Individual differences in adult decisionmaking competence.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 938956.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116131.
Capaldi, D. M., & Rothbart, M. K. (1992). Development and
validation of an early adolescent temperament measure. The
Journal of Early Adolescence, 12, 153173.
Casey, B. J., Giedd, J. N., & Thomas, K. M. (2000). Structural and
functional brain development and its relation to cognitive
development. Biological Psychology, 54, 241257.
J. A. Weller et al.
Caspi, A., & Silva, P. (1995). Temperamental qualities at age
three predict personality traits in young adulthood: Longitudinal evidence from a birth cohort. Child Development, 66,
486498.
Davis, E. P., Bruce, J., & Gunnar, M. R. (2002). The anterior
attention network: Associations with temperament and neuroendocrine activity in 6yearold children. Developmental
Psychobiology, 40, 4356.
Dindo, L., McDadeMontez, E., Sharma, L., Watson, D., & Clark,
L. A. (2009). Development and initial validation of the
disinhibition inventory: A multifaceted measure of disinhibition.
Assessment, 16, 274291.
Del Missier, F., Mntyl, T., & Bruine de Bruin, W. (2011).
Decisionmaking competence, executive functioning, and general cognitive abilities. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
(this issue).
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Karbon, M., Murphy, B. C., Wosinski,
M., Polazzi, L., Carlo G., & Juhnke, C. (1996). The relations of
childrens dispositional prosocial behavior to emotionality,
regulation, and social functioning. Child Development, 67,
974992.
Eisenberg, N., Smith, C. L., Sadovsky, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2004).
Effortful control: Relations with emotion regulation, adjustment, and socialization in childhood. In R. F. Baumeister, &
K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self regulation: Research, theory,
and applications (pp. 259282). New York: Guilford Press.
Ellis, L. K., & Rothbart, M. K. (2001). Revision of the Early
Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire. Poster session presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in
Child Development, Minneapolis, MN.
Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters
upon the identication of a target letter in a nonsearch task.
Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143149.
Finucane, M. L., & Gullion, C. M. (2010). Developing a tool for
measuring the decisionmaking competence of older adults.
Psychology and Aging, 25, 271288.
Frick, P. J., Kuper, K., Silverthorn, P., & Cotter, M. (1995).
Antisocial behavior, somatization, and sensationseeking behavior in mothers of clinicreferred children. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34,
805812.
Giancola, P. R., & Mezzich, A. C. (2003). Executive functioning,
temperament, and drug use involvement in adolescent females
with a substance use disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 44, 857866.
Giancola, P. R., Mezzich, A. C., & Tarter, R. E. (1998). Executive
cognitive functioning, temperament, and antisocial behavior in
conductdisordered adolescent females. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 107, 629641.
Grice, J. W. (2001). Computing and evaluating factor scores.
Psychological Methods, 6, 430450.
Harbaugh, W. T., Krause, K., & Vesterlund, L. (2002). Risk attitudes
of children and adults: Choices over small and large probability
gains and losses. Experimental Economics, 5, 5384.
Jacobs, J. E., & Klaczynski, P. A. (2005). The development of
judgment and decision making in children and adolescents.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jacobs, J. E., & Potenza, M. (1991). The use of judgment heuristics
to make social and object decisions: A developmental
perspective. Child Development, 64, 166178.
JensenCampbell, L. A., Rosselli, M., Workman, K. A., Santisi, M.,
Rios, J., & Bojan, D. (2002). Agreeableness, conscientiousness,
and effortful control processes. Journal of Research in
Personality, 36, 476489.
Klaczynski, P. A. (2001). Analytic and heuristic processing
inuences on adolescent reasoning and decision making. Child
Development, 72, 844861.
Klaczynski, P. A. (2004). A dualprocess model of adolescent
development: Implications for decision making, reasoning, and
identity. In R. V. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child development and
behavior (pp. 73123). San Diego: Elsevier.
Copyright
423
Kochanska, G., Barry, R., Jimenez, N., Hollatz, A., & Woodard, J.
(2009). Guilt and effortful control: Two mechanisms that
prevent disruptive developmental trajectories. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 322333.
Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., & Harlan, E. (2000). Effortful
control in early childhood: Continuity and change, antecedents,
and implications for social development. Developmental
Psychology, 36, 220232.
Kochanska, G., Murray, K., Jacques, T. Y., & Koenig, A. L.
(1996). Inhibitory control in young children and its role in
emerging internalization. Child Development, 67, 490507.
Kokis, J. V., Macpherson, R., Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., &
Stanovich, K. E. (2002). Heuristic and analytic processing:
Age trends and associations with cognitive ability and
cognitive styles. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
83, 2652.
LeBoeuf, R., & Shar, E. (2003). Deep thoughts and shallow
frames: On the susceptibility to framing effects. Journal of
Behavioral Decision Making, 16, 7792.
Lengua, L. J. (2003). Associations among emotionality, self
regulation, adjustment problems, and positive adjustment in
middle childhood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 595618.
Levin, I. P., Gaeth, G. J., Schreiber, J., & Lauriola, M. (2002). A
new look at framing effects: Distribution of effect sizes,
individual differences, and independence of types of effects.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88,
411429.
Levin, I. P., & Hart, S. S. (2003) Risk preferences in young
children: Early evidence of individual differences in reaction to
potential gains and losses. Journal of Behavioral Decision
Making, 16, 397413.
Levin, I. P., Hart, S. S., Weller, J. A., & Harshman, L. A. (2007).
Stability of choices in a risky decision making task: A 3year
longitudinal study with children and adults. Journal of
Behavioral Decision Making, 20, 241252.
Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are
not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing
effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 149188.
Levin, I. P., Weller, J. A., Pederson, A. A., & Harshman, L. A.
(2007). Agerelated differences in adaptive decision making:
Sensitivity to expected value in risky choice. Judgment and
Decision Making, 2, 225233.
MacDonald, K. B. (2008). Effortful control, explicit processing,
and the regulation of human evolved predispositions. Psychological Review, 115, 10121031.
McGue, M., Slutske, W., Taylor, J., & Iacono, W. G. (1997).
Personality and substance use disorders: I. Effects of gender and
alcoholism subtype. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental
Research, 21, 513520.
Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2003). Psychopathy and the ve
factor model of personality: A replication and extension.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 81, 168178.
Morsanyi, K., & Handley, S. J. (2008). How smart do you need to
be to get it wrong? The role of cognitive capacity in the
development of heuristicbased judgment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 99, 1836.
Muris, P., & Meesters, C. (2009). Reactive and regulative
temperament in youths: Psychometric evaluation of the early
adolescent temperament questionnairerevised. Journal of
Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 31, 719.
Murray, K. T., & Kochanska, G. (2002). Effortful control: Factor
structure and relation to externalizing and internalizing behaviors.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 503514.
Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2001). The go/nogo association
task. Social Cognition, 19, 625666.
Olson, S. L., Sameroff, A. J., Kerr, D. C., Lopez, N. L., &
Wellman, H. M. (2005). Developmental foundations of
externalizing problems in young children: The role of effortful
control. Development and Psychopathology, 17, 2545.
424
Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2005). Decisionmaking competence: External validation through an individualdifferences
approach. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18, 127.
Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (1998). Attention, selfregulation,
and consciousness. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London, B, 353, 19151927.
Reyna, V. F., & Ellis, S. C. (1994). Fuzzytrace theory and framing
in childrens risky decision making. Psychological Science, 5,
275279.
Romer, D. (2010). Adolescent risk taking, impulsivity, and brain
development: Implications for prevention. Developmental
Psychobiology, 52, 263276.
Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Temperament, development, and personality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 207212.
Rothbart, M. K., & Ahadi, S. A. (1994). Temperament and the
development of personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
103, 5566.
Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Evans, D. E. (2000).
Temperament and personality: Origins and outcomes. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 122135.
Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (2006). Temperament. In
W. Damon, R. Lerner, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of
child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 99106). New York: Wiley.
Rothbart, M. K., Derryberry, D., & Posner, M. I. (1994). A
psychobiological approach to the development of temperament.
In J. E. Bates & T. D. Wachs (Eds.), Temperament: Individual
differences at the interface of biology and behavior (pp. 83116).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Schlottmann, A., & Anderson, N. H. (1994). Childrens judgments
of expected value. Developmental Psychology, 30, 5666.
Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual
differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stanovich, K. E. (2009). What intelligence tests miss: The psychology
of rational thought. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1997). Reasoning independently
of prior belief and individual differences in actively openminded
thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 342357.
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998a). Cognitive ability and
variation in selection task performance. Thinking and Reasoning, 4, 193230.
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998b). Individual differences in
rational thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General,
127, 161188.
6
Very much
J. A. Weller et al.
425
6
Most likely to recommend B
Under/Overcondence.
Instructions that were provided are in the succeeding paragraphs: This survey has true/false questions. For example, Iowa
States football team is the Cyclones.
We want you to do two things:
First, answer the question. In this example, you might think Yes, the football team is the Cyclones. So the statement is
TRUE. Then you would circle true.
Iowa States football team is the Cyclones. This statement is [true/false].
Second, think about how sure you are of your answer. Give a number from 50% to 100%. In other words, what is the percent
chance that you are right? Circle one of the numbers on the scale.
If your answer is a total guess, circle 50%. This means that there is a 50% chance that you are right and a 50% chance that you are
wrong. If you are absolutely sure, circle 100%. If you are not sure, then circle a number in between to show how sure you are.
Sample question 1) The Declaration of Independence was written in 1776. This statement is [true/false].
50%
just guessing
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
absolutely sure
Sample question 2) In order to go to St. Louis, you drive south. This statement is [true/false].
50%
just guessing
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
absolutely sure
Low
Medium
How easy it
is to use
How good
the graphic
is
How good
the sound is
High
Game
selection and
variety
Video game
system 1
Video game
system 2
Price
$300.00
$300.00
Tom wants a video game system that is special in at least one way. For him, that means at least
medium in either how good the sound is or game selection and variety.
Which video game system will Tom choose? _______________
Copyright
426
Instructions: Each of these questions asks for your best guess at the chance that something will happen to you in the future. You
should use the probability scale that you see below. To answer each question, please put a mark on the scale at one specic
tick mark.
If you think that something has no chance of happening to you, mark it as having a 0% chance. If you think that something is
certain to happen to you, mark it as having a 100% chance.
What is the probability that you will go to the principal or have your parents called because of bad behavior at school during
the next month (next two years)?
0%
100%
10%
5%
20%
15%
30%
25%
40%
35%
50%
45%
60%
55%
70%
65%
80%
75%
90%
85%
0%
no chance
95%
100%
certainty
Authors biographies:
Joshua A. Weller is a research scientist at Decision Research
(Eugene, OR). His research focuses on how the ability to make
advantageous decisions develops throughout the lifespan. Additionally, Dr. Weller is interested in understanding how individual
differences relate to risk taking and decision making.
Irwin P. Levin is Professor in the Department of Psychology
and the Department of Marketing at the University of Iowa. His
interests are in individual differences in decision making,
particularly risky decision making. His recent work in this area
includes agerelated differences and neuropsychological correlates of behavioral differences.
Jason P. Rose is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at the
University of Toledo where he directs the Self and Social
Evaluation Lab. His interests are at the intersection of social
cognition, judgment and decision making, and health psychology.
Specifically, his research has investigated social comparison
Copyright
6
Most likely to leave