Systematic design for trait introgression projects

We demonstrate an innovative approach for designing Trait Introgression (TI) projects based on optimization principles from Operations Research. If the designs of TI projects are based on clear and measurable objectives, they can be translated into mathematical models with decision variables and constraints that can be translated into Pareto optimality plots associated with any arbitrary selection strategy. The Pareto plots can be used to make rational decisions concerning the trade-offs between maximizing the probability of success while minimizing costs and time. The systematic rigor associated with a cost, time and probability of success (CTP) framework is well suited to designing TI projects that require dynamic decision making. The CTP framework also revealed that previously identified ‘best’ strategies can be improved to be at least twice as effective without increasing time or expenses

Measuring individual differences in decision biases: methodological considerations

BACKGROUND: Individual differences in people’s susceptibility to heuristics and biases (HB) are often measured by multiple- bias questionnaires consisting of one or a few items for each bias. This research approach relies on the assumptions that (1) different versions of a decision bias task measure are interchangeable as they measure the same cognitive failure; and (2) that some combination of these tasks measures the same underlying construct. Based on these assumptions, in Study 1 we developed two versions of a new decision bias survey for which we modified 13 HB tasks to increase their comparability, construct validity, and the participants’ motivation. The analysis of the responses (N = 1279) showed weak internal consistency within the surveys and a great level of discrepancy between the extracted patterns of the underlying factors. To explore these inconsistencies, in Study 2 we used three original examples of HB tasks for each of seven biases. We created three decision bias surveys by allocating one version of each HB task to each survey. The participants’ responses (N = 527) showed a similar pattern as in Study 1, questioning the assumption that the different examples of the HB tasks are interchangeable and that they measure the same underlying construct. These results emphasize the need to understand the domain-specificity of cognitive biases as well as the effect of the wording of the cover story and the response mode on bias susceptibility before employing them in multiple-bias questionnaires

What Makes Terrorists Tick

Max Abrahms’s article “What Terrorists Really Want: Terrorist Motives and Counterterrorism Strategy” is a welcome critique of the many points taken for granted by rational choice interpretations of terrorist group behavior.1 His systematic review of the observable implications of rational choice perspectives on terrorism reveals some of the important shortfalls in the current literature. Abrahms overreaches, however, in rejecting strategic models of terrorism without providing ample empirical evidence or qualifications to his claims