21 found
Order:
  1. David R. Mandel (2015). Instruction in Information Structuring Improves Bayesian Judgment in Intelligence Analysts. Frontiers in Psychology 6.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  2.  12
    David R. Mandel (2008). Violations of Coherence in Subjective Probability: A Representational and Assessment Processes Account. Cognition 106 (1):130-156.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  3.  19
    David R. Mandel (1998). The Obedience Alibi. Analyse & Kritik 20 (S 74):94.
    Stanley Milgram's work on obedience to authority is social psychology's most influential contribution to theorizing about Holocaust perpetration. The gist of Milgram's claims is that Holocaust perpetrators were just following orders out of a sense of obligation to their superiors. Milgram, however, never undertook a scholarly analysis of how his obedience experiments related to the Holocaust. The author first discusses the major theoretical limitations of Milgram's position and then examines the implications of Milgram's experimental manipulations for Holocaust theorizing, contrasting a (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  4.  6
    David R. Mandel (2003). Judgment Dissociation Theory: An Analysis of Differences in Causal, Counterfactual and Covariational Reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 132 (3):419.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  5.  22
    David R. Mandel, Denis J. Hilton & Patrizia Catellani (eds.) (2005). The Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking. Routledge.
    It is human nature to wonder how things might have turned out differently--either for the better or for the worse. For the past two decades psychologists have been intrigued by this phenomenon, which they call counterfactual thinking. Specifically, researchers have sought to answer the "big" questions: Why do people have such a strong propensity to generate counterfactuals, and what functions does counterfactual thinking serve? What are the determinants of counterfactual thinking, and what are its adaptive and psychological consequences? This important (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  6.  22
    David R. Mandel (2003). Effect of Counterfactual and Factual Thinking on Causal Judgements. Thinking and Reasoning 9 (3):245 – 265.
    The significance of counterfactual thinking in the causal judgement process has been emphasized for nearly two decades, yet no previous research has directly compared the relative effect of thinking counterfactually versus factually on causal judgement. Three experiments examined this comparison by manipulating the task frame used to focus participants' thinking about a target event. Prior to making judgements about causality, preventability, blame, and control, participants were directed to think about a target actor either in counterfactual terms (what the actor could (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  7.  16
    David R. Mandel & Oshin Vartanian (2008). Taboo or Tragic: Effect of Tradeoff Type on Moral Choice, Conflict, and Confidence. [REVIEW] Mind and Society 7 (2):215-226.
    Historically, cognitivists considered moral choices to be determined by analytic processes. Recent theories, however, have emphasized the role of intuitive processes in determining moral choices. We propose that the engagement of analytic and intuitive processes is contingent on the type of tradeoff being considered. Specifically, when a tradeoff necessarily violates a moral principle no matter what choice is made, as in tragic tradeoffs, its resolution should result in greater moral conflict and less confidence in choice than when the tradeoff offers (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  8.  4
    David R. Mandel (2007). Nested Sets Theory, Full Stop: Explaining Performance on Bayesian Inference Tasks Without Dual-Systems Assumptions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30 (3):275-276.
    Consistent with Barbey & Sloman (B&S), it is proposed that performance on Bayesian inference tasks is well explained by nested sets theory (NST). However, contrary to those authors' view, it is proposed that NST does better by dispelling with dual-systems assumptions. This article examines why, and sketches out a series of NST's core principles, which were not previously defined.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  9. David R. Mandel & Darrin R. Lehman (1998). Integration of Contingency Information in Judgments of Cause, Covariation, and Probability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 127 (3):269-285.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  10.  3
    David R. Mandel (2014). Suicide Terrorism, Moral Relativism, and the Situationist Narrative. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 37 (4):373.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11.  4
    David R. Mandel (2007). Differential Focus in Causal and Counterfactual Thinking: Different Possibilities or Different Functions? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30 (5-6):460-461.
    In The Rational Imagination, Byrne proposes a mental models account of why causal and counterfactual thinking often focus on different antecedents. This review critically examines the two central propositions of her account, finding both only weakly defensible. Byrne's account is contrasted with judgment dissociation theory, which offers a functional explanation for differences in the focus of causal and counterfactual thinking.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12. David R. Mandel (2005). Are Risk Assessments of a Terrorist Attack Coherent? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 11 (4):277-288.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  13.  7
    Mandeep K. Dhami & David R. Mandel (2012). Forecasted Risk Taking in Youth: Evidence for a Bounded-Rationality Perspective. Synthese 189 (S1):161-171.
    This research examined whether youth's forecasted risk taking is best predicted by a compensatory (namely, subjective expected utility) or non-compensatory (e.g., single-factor) model. Ninety youth assessed the importance of perceived benefits, importance of perceived drawbacks, subjective probability of benefits, and subjective probability of drawbacks for 16 risky behaviors clustered evenly into recreational and health/safety domains. In both domains, there was strong support for a noncompensatory model in which only the perceived importance of the benefits of engaging in a risky behavior (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14.  10
    David R. Mandel (2000). On the Meaning and Function of Normative Analysis: Conceptual Blur in the Rationality Debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):686-687.
    The rationality debate centers on the meaning of deviations of decision makers' responses from the predictions/prescriptions of normative models. But for the debate to have significance, the meaning and functions of normative analysis must be clear. Presently, they are not, and the debate's persistence owes much to conceptual blur. An attempt is made here to clarify the concept of normative analysis.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15. David R. Mandel (2005). Counterfactual and Causal Explanation: From Early Theoretical Views to New Frontiers. In David R. Mandel, Denis J. Hilton & Patrizia Catellani (eds.), The Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking. Routledge
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16.  1
    David R. Mandel (2011). Of Causal and Counterfactual Explanation. In Christoph Hoerl, Teresa McCormack & Sarah R. Beck (eds.), Understanding Counterfactuals, Understanding Causation. Oxford University Press 147.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17.  3
    David R. Mandel (2010). Predicting Blame Assignment in a Case of Negligent Harm. Mind and Society 9 (1):5-17.
    Theories of blame posit that observers consider causality, controllability, and foreseeability when assigning blame to actors. The present study examined which of these factors, either on their own or in interaction, predicted blame assigned to actors in a case of harm caused by negligence. The findings revealed that only causal impact ratings predicted blame. The findings also revealed a novel form of asymmetric discounting: the causal impact of a negligent actor was used to discount blame assigned to an innocent actor, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18. David R. Mandel (2015). Communicating Numeric Quantities in Context: Implications for Decision Science and Rationality Claims. Frontiers in Psychology 6.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19. David R. Mandel (2014). Do Framing Effects Reveal Irrational Choice? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143 (3):1185-1198.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20. David R. Mandel & Philip E. Tetlock (2016). Debunking the Myth of Value-Neutral Virginity: Toward Truth in Scientific Advertising. Frontiers in Psychology 7.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21. David R. Mandel & Gorka Navarrete (2015). Editorial: Improving Bayesian Reasoning: What Works and Why? Frontiers in Psychology 6.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography