The Attraction Effect in Decision Making: Superior Performance by Older Adults
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous work showed that older adults' choice performance can be wiser than that of younger adults (Tentori, Osherson, Hasher, & May, 2001). We contrasted two possible interpretations: a general expertise/wisdom view that suggests that older adults are generally more skilled at making decisions than younger adults and a domain-specific expertise view that suggests that older adults are more skilled decision makers only in domains in which they have greater knowledge. These hypotheses were contrasted using attraction effect tasks in two different domains: earning extra credit in a course and grocery shopping, domains presumed to be of different levels of knowledge to younger and older adults. Older adults showed consistent choice for both domains; younger adults showed consistent choice only for the extra credit problem. Several explanations of these findings are considered, including Damasio's somatic marker theory and age differences in reliance on heuristic versus analytic styles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it