process tracing

What HoPTM looks like from the inside

As mentioned some days ago our Handbook of Process Tracing Methods is out in the wild … Here is a bit of an overview of what is going on inside :) The book has 390 pages divided into 24 chapters. There are 202014 words in there including everything (references, thanks, hello, goodbye …). Ignoring the chapters and that they have reference lists, that mess up things a bit, first an overview of frequency for highly frequent words:

Handbook of Process Tracing Methods

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

BernR Meetup

Today (Dec 10th 2018) we will meet for the first BernR Meetup (https://www.meetup.com/Bern-R/) – hope to learn new things and get to know cool R people. More to follow soon ..

Growing up to be old

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.

Something about reverse inference

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?