Has the Standard Cognitive Reflection Test Become a Victim of Its Own Success?

The Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) is a hugely influential problem solving task that measures individual differences in the propensity to reflect on and override intuitive (but incorrect) solutions. The validity of this three-item measure depends on participants being naïve to its materials and objectives. Evidence from 142 volunteers recruited online suggests this is often not the case. Over half of the sample had previously seen at least one of the problems, predominantly through research participation or the media. These participants produced substantially higher CRT scores than those without prior exposure (2.36 vs. 1.48), with the majority scoring at ceiling level. Participants that had previously seen a specific problem (e.g., the bat and ball problem) nearly always solved that problem correctly. These data suggest the CRT may have been widely invalidated. As a minimum, researchers must control for prior exposure to the three problems and begin to consider alternative, extended measures of cognitive reflection

VOLATILITY SPILLOVERS BETWEEN FOREIGN EXCHANGE, COMMODITY AND FREIGHT FUTURES PRICES: IMPLICATIONS FOR HEDGING STRATEGIES

In many studies the assumption is made that traders only encounter one type of price risk. In reality, however, traders are exposed to multiple price risks, and often have several relevant derivative instruments available with which to hedge price uncertainty. In this study, commodity, foreign exchange, and freight futures contracts are analyzed for their effectiveness in reducing price uncertainty for international grain traders. A theoretical model is developed for a representative European importer to depict a realistic trading problem encountered by an international grain trading corporation exposed to more than one type of price risk. The traditional method of estimating hedge ratios by Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) is compared to the Seemingly Unrelated Regression (SUR) and the multivariate GARCH (MGARCH) methodology, which takes into account time-varying variances and covariances between the cash and futures markets. Explicit modeling of the time-variation in futures hedge ratios via the MGARCH methodology, using all derivatives and taking into account dependencies between markets results in a significant reduction in price risk for grain traders. The results also confirm that the unique, but underutilized, freight futures market is a potentially useful mechanism for reducing price uncertainty for international grain traders. The research undertaken in this study provides valuable information about reducing price uncertainty for international grain traders and gives a better understanding of the linkages between closely related markets.hedging, multivariate GARCH, foreign exchange, freight and commodity futures, Financial Economics, International Relations/Trade,

VOLATILITY SPILLOVERS BETWEEN FOREIGN EXCHANGE, COMMODITY AND FREIGHT FUTURES PRICES: IMPLICATIONS FOR HEDGING STRATEGIES

In many studies the assumption is made that traders only encounter one type of price risk. In reality, however, traders are exposed to multiple price risks, and often have several relevant derivative instruments available with which to hedge price uncertainty. In this study, commodity, foreign exchange, and freight futures contracts are analyzed for their effectiveness in reducing price uncertainty for international grain traders. A theoretical model is developed for a representative European importer to depict a realistic trading problem encountered by an international grain trading corporation exposed to more than one type of price risk. The traditional method of estimating hedge ratios by Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) is compared to the Seemingly Unrelated Regression (SUR) and the multivariate GARCH (MGARCH) methodology, which takes into account time-varying variances and covariances between the cash and futures markets. Explicit modeling of the time-variation in futures hedge ratios via the MGARCH methodology, using all derivatives and taking into account dependencies between markets results in a significant reduction in price risk for grain traders. The results also confirm that the unique, but underutilized, freight futures market is a potentially useful mechanism for reducing price uncertainty for international grain traders. The research undertaken in this study provides valuable information about reducing price uncertainty for international grain traders and gives a better understanding of the linkages between closely related markets.hedging, multivariate GARCH, foreign exchange, freight and commodity futures, Marketing, F3, C3, G1,

Stakeholders in global climate policy instruments

Everywhere the call is out for ‘stakeholder’ involvement as a means for improving developmental decisions, particularly those involving complex technology, uncertain risks, and contending values. Everywhere but in funds management, it would seem. Despite the presence of obligations under policy instruments such as the Kyoto Protocol, funds management sectors (comprising pooled investment schemes such as hedge funds, pension funds, insurance companies and mutual funds) have been excluded from ecological crisis management discussions

Apprehending business and society

This paper claims to make a contribution by addressing a significant number of epistemological, theoretical and methodological problems in the business and society literature. We identify six sets of potential influences promoting corporate social responsibility. The private sector encompasses intra-organisational obligations and pressures from competitors, investors and consumers. Governmental and non-governmental organisations exert regulatory pressures. Calling upon radical institutional theory, we address each set with respect to its conceptual arguments, its empirical salience in terms of the latest relevant research, and our considered opinion regarding its prospects to be a significant factor in promoting outcomes consistent with social welfare. The conclusion addresses their combined potential to put capitalism on a firmly sustainable track, or whether they amount to an ideological distraction from capitalist pathologies. A call is made for fresh imaginings of the discourse.<br /

An eye-tracking examination of readers’ sensitivity to pragmatic scope information during the processing of conditional inducements

Previous research into conditional inducements has shown that readers are sensitive after reading such conditionals to pragmatic scope differences between promises and threats; specifically, threats can be referred to as promises, but promises cannot be referred to as threats. Crucially, previous work has not revealed whether such scope effects emerge while processing the conditional itself. In the experiment reported here participants’ eye-movements were recorded whilst they read vignettes containing conditional promises and threats. We observed a reading time penalty on the conditional itself when participants read a conditional promise that was described as a “threat” (e.g., Liam threatened Perry "if you tell dad, then I'll take equal responsibility"). There was no such penalty when the word "promise" was presented before a conditional threat. These results suggest that readers are sensitive during reading of the conditional itself to pragmatic scope differences between “threats” and "promises"

Does ‘Scientists believe…’ imply ‘All scientists believe...’? Individual differences in the interpretation of generic news headlines

Media headlines reporting scientific research frequently include generic phrases such as “Scientists believe x” or “Experts think y”. These phrases capture attention and succinctly communicate science to the public. However, by generically attributing beliefs to ‘Scientists’, ‘Experts’ or ‘Researchers’ the degree of scientific consensus must be inferred by the reader or listener (do all scientists believe x, most scientists, or just a few?). Our data revealed that decontextualized generic phrases such as “Scientists say…” imply consensus among a majority of relevant experts (53.8% in Study 1 and 60.7-61.8% in Study 2). There was little variation in the degree of consensus implied by different generic phrases, but wide variation between different participants. These ratings of decontextualized phrases will inevitably be labile and prone to change with the addition of context, but under controlled conditions people interpret generic consensus statements in very different ways. We tested the novel hypothesis that individual differences in consensus estimates occur because generic phrases encourage an intuitive overgeneralization (e.g., Scientists believe = All scientists believe) that some people revise downwards on reflection (e.g., Scientists believe = Some scientists believe). Two pre-registered studies failed to support this hypothesis. There was no significant relationship between reflective thinking and consensus estimates (Study 1) and enforced reflection did not cause estimates to be revised downwards (Study 2). Those reporting scientific research should be aware that generically attributing beliefs to ‘Scientists’ or ‘Researchers’ is ambiguous and inappropriate when there is no clear consensus among relevant experts

Sensitivity assessment of bathymetry and choice of tidal constituents on tidal stream energy resource characterisation in the Gulf of California, Mexico

There has been a significant increase in the number of published tidal-stream energy resource assessments in recent years due to the growing availability of open-source hydrodynamic models, and freely available data for model bathymetry (e.g. GEBCO_2014 and ETOPO) and boundary conditions (e.g. TPXO, FES, EOT). This study examines how the choice of bathymetry and tidal constituents affects the quantification of a tidal-stream energy resource, by conducting sensitivity tests for the Gulf of California. We find that the mean KPD (Kinetic Power Density) and annual mean power are significantly underestimated when using just GEBCO_2014 or ETOPO bathymetry data sources on their own. For the Midriff region, between San Lorenzo and San Esteban Islands (herein the San Lorenzo Passage), the annual mean power potential was estimated to be around 50 MW when using freely available bathymetry data, while the annual mean power increased to ~200 MW when using a bespoke dataset that was a combination of GEBCO and higher-resolution bathymetry provided by CICESE (The Centre for Scientific Research and Higher Education at Ensenada). Current speeds reduce from 2.4 m/s when using high-resolution to around 1.2 m/s and 0.8 m/s when using open source bathymetry products. Finally, we compared the estimated energy using tidal levels predicted from 29 tidal constituents compared with simulations that included just the principal semi-diurnal lunar (M2) and solar (S2) constituents. The annual mean KPD reduced by almost 1/3rd in the San Lorenzo Passage, when just considering M2 and S2 constituents, suggesting that diurnal and higher order harmonic constituents are important for accurate resource assessments in this region

When 'Scientists say' coffee is good for you one day and bad for you the next: Do generic attributions to ‘Scientists’ and ‘Experts’ amplify perceived conflict?

News consumers are frequently exposed to seemingly conflicting claims about the risks or benefits of activities such as eating meat and drinking coffee, which can lead to confusion and backlash against expert advice. One factor that may artificially inflate perceived conflict is the tendency for news headlines to generically attribute such claims to ‘Scientists’, ‘Experts’ or ‘Researchers’. This can create the perception that scientific consensus frequently changes, with ‘experts’ saying one thing one day (e.g., “Fasting diet could regenerate pancreas and reverse diabetes, researchers say”) and another the next (“Fasting diets may raise risk of diabetes, researchers warn”). We predicted that hedging news headlines with the qualifier ‘some’ (e.g., ...some researchers say) would reduce perceived contradiction and backlash by triggering the scalar inference “some but not all…”. We presented participants with a series of conflicting headlines or non-conflicting headlines about health and nutrition. These were presented in either their original generic format (e.g., Researchers say...) or in a qualified format (e.g., Some researchers say…). Those that saw conflicting headlines felt they were more contradictory, more confusing and resulted in us knowing less about how to be healthy than those who saw the non-conflicting headlines (Experiment 1, N=294). In Experiment 2 (N=400), the same conflict manipulation had no effect on more general beliefs about nutrition or the development of science. When our conflict manipulation did affect beliefs (Experiment 1) the effect of conflict was not moderated by headline format. Our results suggest that replacing generic consensus claims (e.g., Researchers say...) with qualified consensus claims (e.g., Some researchers say…) does not reduce the perceived contradiction and confusion that are typically associated with conflicting news reports