↓ Skip to main content

Is it time for studying real-life debiasing? Evaluation of the effectiveness of an analogical intervention technique

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Is it time for studying real-life debiasing? Evaluation of the effectiveness of an analogical intervention technique
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01120
Pubmed ID
Authors

Balazs Aczel, Bence Bago, Aba Szollosi, Andrei Foldes, Bence Lukacs

Abstract

The aim of this study was to initiate the exploration of debiasing methods applicable in real-life settings for achieving lasting improvement in decision making competence regarding multiple decision biases. Here, we tested the potentials of the analogical encoding method for decision debiasing. The advantage of this method is that it can foster the transfer from learning abstract principles to improving behavioral performance. For the purpose of the study, we devised an analogical debiasing technique for 10 biases (covariation detection, insensitivity to sample size, base rate neglect, regression to the mean, outcome bias, sunk cost fallacy, framing effect, anchoring bias, overconfidence bias, planning fallacy) and assessed the susceptibility of the participants (N = 154) to these biases before and 4 weeks after the training. We also compared the effect of the analogical training to the effect of 'awareness training' and a 'no-training' control group. Results suggested improved performance of the analogical training group only on tasks where the violations of statistical principles are measured. The interpretation of these findings require further investigation, yet it is possible that analogical training may be the most effective in the case of learning abstract concepts, such as statistical principles, which are otherwise difficult to master. The study encourages a systematic research of debiasing trainings and the development of intervention assessment methods to measure the endurance of behavior change in decision debiasing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Unknown 105 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 21%
Student > Master 22 21%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Researcher 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 16 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 29 27%
Business, Management and Accounting 14 13%
Social Sciences 9 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 6%
Other 21 20%
Unknown 21 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 March 2023.
All research outputs
#1,630,137
of 23,864,690 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#3,283
of 31,831 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,781
of 266,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#71
of 547 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,864,690 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,831 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,626 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 547 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.