[ACT-R-users] Call for commentaries: Special issue on "Modeling and aiding intuition" (Julian Marewski & Ulrich Hoffrage, Eds.)

[Julian Marewski]

Dear all, Would you please be so kind to post this on the ACT-R mailing
list? So many thanks, Julian / Ulrich  

 

Dear colleagues,

 We like to 

-        - draw your attention to a special issue on “Modeling and Aiding
Intuition in Organizational Decision Making” that recently appeared in the
Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition;
http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-applied-research-in-memory-and-c
ognition/editorial-board/), and 

-        - solicit commentaries on the articles and opinion pieces published
in this issue.

 

In this special issue, a total of 17 articles pull together diverse
approaches to intuition, including naturalistic-decision-making,
heuristics-and-biases, dual-processes, ACT-R, CLARION, Brunswikian
approaches, and Quantum-Probability-Theory. They use various methods
(computational models, experimental and observational work, laboratory and
naturalistic research), they cover various domains (consulting, investment,
law, police, and morality), and they relate intuition to implicit cognition,
emotions, scope insensitivity, expertise, and representative experimental
design. Moreover, in our introductory article, we relate intuition research
to historical, societal, and philosophical poles such as
Enlightenment-Romanticism, reason-emotion, objectivity-subjectivity,
inferences-qualia, Taylorism-universal scholarship, dichotomies-dialectics,
and science-art. 

 The contributors to this special issue include several founders of
influential research programs on intuition, four former presidents of the
Society of Judgment and Decision Making (including the first two), a
contemporary of towering Psychologist Egon Brunswik, and various former or
current editors of general and specialized psychology journals (e.g.,
Psychological Review, Judgment and Decision Making, Decision).

In addition to soliciting the usual type of scientific commentaries (e.g.,
extensions, critique, praise), we would, first and foremost, like to
encourage commentaries that make and leave the reader curious, and in doing
so, help her to create and shed light on the mystery of what is commonly
called “intuition.”

The articles, including our introductory article with its overview of the
entire issue, are open access and can be downloaded here:
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/22113681/4/3>
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/22113681/4/3.

 

I. Introduction:

1.       Ulrich Hoffrage & Julian N. Marewski --- Unveiling the Lady in
Black: Modeling and aiding intuition. 

 

II. Experience, Expertise, and Environments:

2.       Gary Klein --- A naturalistic decision making perspective on
studying intuitive decision making. 

3.       James Shanteau --- Why task domains (still) matter for
understanding expertise.

4.       Kenneth R. Hammond --- Causality vs generality: Judgment and
decision making struggles to become a scientific discipline.

 

III. Formal Models and Cognitive Architectures:

5.       Robert Thomson, Christian Lebiere, John R. Anderson, & James
Staszewski --- A general instance-based learning framework for   studying
intuitive decision-making in a cognitive architecture.

6.       Ron Sun --- Interpreting psychological notions: A dual-process
computational theory.

7.       Ion Juvina, Christian Lebiere, & Cleotilde Gonzalez --- Modeling
trust dynamics in strategic interaction.

 

IV. Prescription, Aiding, and Rationality:

8.       Rex Brown --- Decision science as a by-product of decision-aiding:
A practitioner's perspective. 

9.       Robin Hogarth & Emre Soyer --- Providing information for decision
making: Contrasting description and simulation. 

10.   Lee C. White, Emmanuel M. Pothos, Jerome R. Busemeyer --- Insights
from quantum cognitive models for organizational decision making.

 

V. Sentencing, Valuation, and Moral Judgments:

11.   Mandeep K. Dhami, Ian Belton, & Jane Goodman-Delahunty ---
Quasirational models of sentencing.

12.   Stephan Dickert, Daniel Västfjäll, Janet Kleber, & Paul Slovic ---
Scope insensitivity: The limits of intuitive valuation of human lives in
public policy.

13.   Martina Raue, Bernhard Streicher, Eva Lermer, & Dieter Frey --- How
far does it feel? Construal level and decisions under risk.

14.   Jonathan Baron, Sydney Scott, Katrina Fincher, & S. Emlen Metz --- Why
does the Cognitive Reflection Test (sometimes) predict utilitarian moral
judgment (and other things)?

 

VI. Intuition in the Wild:

15.   Sylviane Chassot, Christian A. Klöckner, & Rolf Wüstenhagen --- Can
implicit cognition predict the behavior of professional energy investors? An
explorative application of the Implicit Association Test (IAT).

16.   Shanique G. Brown, Catherine S. Daus --- The influence of police
officers’ decision-making style and anger control on responses to work
scenarios.

17.   Thorsten Pachur, Melanie Spaar --- Domain-specific preferences for
intuition and deliberation in decision making.

 

If you are interested in writing a commentary on one or several of these
articles, please send us (Julian.marewski at unil.ch,
<mailto:Ulrich.Hoffrage at unil.ch> Ulrich.Hoffrage at unil.ch, with cc to the
journal’s editor-in-chief Ron Fisher, fisherr at fiu.edu), before January 10th,
2016, a short summary of your proposal (about 1/4 page). We will then
decide, before January 15th, whether (or not) we invite you to submit a full
commentary. Invited commentaries should be submitted by February 29th. If
you anticipate that you will need more time to write your commentary than
the 6 weeks we can grant you, we kindly ask you to submit us your ¼ page
commentary proposal any time between today and January 10th. If your
commentary proposal convinces us on the spot, we will immediately invite you
to submit a full commentary, which will give you more time until the
submission deadline.

The final version should ultimately fit two journal pages (which amounts to
a maximum of approx. 1,800 words, including references), but we are able to
offer more space if we can be convinced that readers will likely feel their
time to be well-spent.  

 

Julian Marewski & Ulrich Hoffrage

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/pipermail/act-r-users/attachments/20151016/fee13bba/attachment.html>