What You Find Depends on How You Measure It: Reactivity of Response Scales Measuring Predecisional Information Distortion in Medical Diagnosis

“Predecisional information distortion” occurs when decision makers evaluate new information in a way that is biased towards their leading option. The phenomenon is well established, as is the method typically used to measure it, termed “stepwise evolution of preference” (SEP). An inadequacy of this method has recently come to the fore: it measures distortion as the total advantage afforded a leading option over its competitor, and therefore it cannot differentiate between distortion to strengthen a leading option (“proleader” distortion) and distortion to weaken a trailing option (“antitrailer” distortion). To address this, recent research introduced new response scales to SEP. We explore whether and how these new response scales might influence the very proleader and antitrailer processes that they were designed to capture (“reactivity”). We used the SEP method with concurrent verbal reporting: fifty family physicians verbalized their thoughts as they evaluated patient symptoms and signs (“cues”) in relation to two competing diagnostic hypotheses. Twenty-five physicians evaluated each cue using the response scale traditional to SEP (a single response scale, returning a single measure of distortion); the other twenty-five did so using the response scales introduced in recent studies (two separate response scales, returning two separate measures of distortion: proleader and antitrailer). We measured proleader and antitrailer processes in verbalizations, and compared verbalizations in the single-scale and separate-scales groups. Response scales did not appear to affect proleader processes: the two groups of physicians were equally likely to bolster their leading diagnosis verbally. Response scales did, however, appear to affect antitrailer processes: the two groups denigrated their trailing diagnosis verbally to differing degrees. Our findings suggest that the response scales used to measure information distortion might influence its constituent processes, limiting their generalizability across and beyond experimental studies

Will the Conscious–Subconscious Pacing Quagmire Help Elucidate the Mechanisms of Self-Paced Exercise? New Opportunities in Dual Process Theory and Process Tracing Methods

The extent to which athletic pacing decisions are made consciously or subconsciously is a prevailing issue. In this article we discuss why the one-dimensional conscious–subconscious debate that has reigned in the pacing literature has suppressed our understanding of the multidimensional processes that occur in pacing decisions. How do we make our decisions in real-life competitive situations? What information do we use and how do we respond to opponents? These are questions that need to be explored and better understood, using smartly designed experiments. The paper provides clarity about key conscious, preconscious, subconscious and unconscious concepts, terms that have previously been used in conflicting and confusing ways. The potential of dual process theory in articulating multidimensional aspects of intuitive and deliberative decision-making processes is discussed in the context of athletic pacing along with associated process-tracing research methods. In attempting to refine pacing models and improve training strategies and psychological skills for athletes, the dual-process framework could be used to gain a clearer understanding of (1) the situational conditions for which either intuitive or deliberative decisions are optimal; (2) how intuitive and deliberative decisions are biased by things such as perception, emotion and experience; and (3) the underlying cognitive mechanisms such as memory, attention allocation, problem solving and hypothetical thought