WOOP WOOP - here it is - the second edition of our beloved “Handbook of Process Tracing Methods”
If you can’t wait - buy it here: https://www.crcpress.com/A-Handbook-of-Process-Tracing-Methods-2nd-Edition/Schulte-Mecklenbeck-Kuehberger-Johnson/p/book/9781138064218
It is bigger and better than the first edition, comes with the classics (Figner on skin conductance, Willemsen on Mouselab and many more) and many new awesome chapters - here is a list:
1 Eye Fixations as a Process Trace - J. Edward Russo
This was my first contribution to a Registered Replication Report (RRR). Being one of 40 participating labs was an interesting exercise – it might seem straightforward to run the same study in different labs, but we learned that such small things as ü, ä and ö can generate a huge amount of problems and work (read this if you are into these kind of things). Here is one of the central results: So overall not a lot of action … our lab was actually the one with larges effect size (in the predicted direction).
Finally out (already mentioned earlier this year) – now in it’s full glory @ Current Directions in Psychological Science.
a little process tracing history together with the delightful @dggoldst https://t.co/svGBLYcAZv#processtracing #JDM — Michael Schulte (@SchulteMi) October 31, 2017
Some papers have somewhat weird starting points – this one had an awesome starting point – Lake Louise (Canada):
In a little suite we (Joe Johnson, Ulf Böckenholt, Dan Goldstein, Jay Russo, Nikki Sullivan, Martijn Willemsen) sat down during a conference called the ‘Choice Symposium‘ and started working on an overview paper about the history and current status of different process tracing methods. One central result (why can’t all papers be like that) is the figure below where we try to locate many process tracing methods on the two dimensions: temporal resolution and distortion risk (i.
Often, when we run process tracing studies (e.g., eye-tracking, mouse-tracking, thinking-aloud) we talk about cognitive processes (things we can’t observe) in a way that they are actually and directly observable. This is pretty weird – which becomes obvious when looking at the data from the paper below. In this paper we simply instruct participants to follow a strategy when making choices between risky gamble problems. Taking the example of fixation duration we see that there is surprisingly litte difference between calculating an expected value, using a heuristic (priority heuristic) and just making decisions without instructions (no instruction) … maybe we should rethink our mapping of observation to cognitive processes a bit?
Cilia Witteman and Nanon Spaanjaars (my dutch connection) worked together on a piece on whether psychodiagnosticians improve over time (they don’t) in their ability to classify symptoms to DSM categories. This turned out to be a pretty cool paper combining eye-tracking data with a practical, and hopefully, relevant question.
Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Spaanjaars, N.L., & Witteman, C.L.M. (in press). The (in)visibility of psychodiagnosticians’ expertise. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1925
Abstract This study investigates decision making in mental health care.
Andrew Gelman talked about a really old paper I did together with Anton Kühberger ages ago. It was actually the first paper / ‘real’ scientific project I was involved in.
It generated quite the buzz over its 20 year lifespan and was cited a whopping 13 times (stats look good without y-axis) …
Going back to it, I was happy to see that we already talked about replication (and were very reluctant to push the button harder – as we would have not been able to get through the reviews, I guess) … Things have changed.
Recently Ryan Murphy and myself realised that a startup here in Berlin features ideas of our 2011 Flashlight paper.
Well, the guys at attensee.com did a great job taking the idea we had much further we ever thought one would be able to take it …
Here is a feature I totally love – a live heat map of what you are looking at … awesome!