The Effect of working memory and math ability on decision making

223 Pages·2017·1.28 MB·English

by  Jeremy A. Krause

UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones
5-2011
TThhee EEffffeecctt ooff wwoorrkkiinngg mmeemmoorryy aanndd mmaatthh aabbiilliittyy oonn ddeecciissiioonn
mmaakkiinngg
Jeremy A. Krause
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations
Part of the Cognitive Psychology Commons, and the Demography, Population, and Ecology Commons
RReeppoossiittoorryy CCiittaattiioonn
Krause, Jeremy A., "The Effect of working memory and math ability on decision making" (2011). UNLV
Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. 947.
http://dx.doi.org/10.34917/2292621
This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital
Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that
is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to
obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons
license in the record and/or on the work itself.

This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and
Capstones by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact
[email protected].
THE EFFECT OF WORKING MEMORY AND MATH ABILITY ON DECISION
MAKING

by

Jeremy Adam Krause

Bachelor of Science
The Ohio State University
2002

Bachelor of Arts
Cleveland State University
2004

Master of Arts
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
2008

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Psychology
Department of Psychology
College of Liberal Arts

Graduate College
The University of Nevada, Las Vegas
May 2011
Copyright by Jeremy A. Krause 2011
All Rights Reserved
THE GRADUATE COLLEGE

We recommend the dissertation prepared under our supervision by

Jeremy A. Krause

entitled

The Effect of Working Memory and Math Ability on Decision Making

be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology

Mark H. Ashcraft, Committee Chair

David E. Copeland, Committee Member

Joel Snyder, Committee Member

Kathryn LaTour, Graduate Faculty Representative

Ronald Smith, Ph. D., Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies
and Dean of the Graduate College

May 2011

ii
ABSTRACT

The Effect of Working Memory and Math Ability on Decision Making

by
Jeremy Adam Krause
Dr. Mark H. Ashcraft, Examination Committee Chair
Professor and Chair of Psychology
University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Previous research has indicated that people use various strategies when making decisions.
A majority of the research has involved the idea that people use a heuristic when making
decisions. Kahneman and Tversky have illustrated that there are instances that people
respond with an answer that appears to be indicative of usage of the representativeness
heuristic. One of the purposes of the current paper is to gain insight into the actual
strategies that are used in these instances. Another purpose of the current experiment is
to see if math ability and working memory capacity influence the strategy that a person
selects to use. Experiment 1 indicated that people were more accurate on these tasks than
expected. On certain tasks, it appears that participants found a simpler strategy than the
representativeness heuristic that produces an accurate answer. In experiment 2, the
stimuli were adjusted to make sure that the simpler strategy would not work on all trials.
The reaction time and response data indicated that the representativeness heuristic was
used when other strategies failed to produce a definitive answer. It was also found that
the participants who were worse at math defaulted to the representativeness heuristic
when the simpler strategy did not result in a definitive answer and that the participants
who were better at math were more likely to respond with the correct answer regardless
of whether or not the simpler strategy resulted in a definitive answer.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my advisor and committee chair, Mark H. Ashcraft. While it has
been quite a journey, there is no one that I would rather have taken this journey with. I
thank you for all that you have done for me throughout the years. I would also like to
thank David E. Copeland, Joel Snyder, and Kathryn LaTour for all the time you spent
editing this short document. Thank you to Michelle Guillaume, Robert Durette, Alex
Moore, and Nathan Rudig for never letting me take myself too seriously.
Thank you to my mother, father, and sister for all your love and support. I love you all
very much.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT…...................................................................................................................iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...............................................................................................iv

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................1
Decision Making……………………………………………………………………....1
Representativeness Heuristic……………………………………………………..…...4
Availability Heuristic………………………………………………………………...13
Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic……………………………………………..…15
Fast and Frugal Heuristics…………………………………………………………...20
Take the Best Heuristic………………………………………………………………25
Conclusion of Heuristics…...…………………………………………………….…..30
Working Memory…………………………………………………………………....31
Working Memory and Decision Making…………………………………………….45
Representativeness Heuristic and Working Memory……………………………..…52
Availability Heuristic and Working Memory……………………………………..…56
Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic and Working Memory………………….........58
Take the Best Heuristic and Working Memory……………………………….……..58
Summary of Working Memory and Heuristics………………………………………59
Math Ability and Decision Making Ability………………………………………….59
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………...…63
Experiment…………………………………………………………………………...66
CHAPTER 2 METHOD…………………….………………………………………..68
Participants………………………………………………..………………………….68
Materials and Procedure……………………………………..………………………68
Subject Information Sheet………………………………………………………..69
Operation Span Task……………………………………………………………..69
WRAT…...................................................................……………………………71
Dual Tasks……………………………………………………………………….71
Hospital Problems………………………………………………………………..73
Career Identification Task………………………………………………………..75
Coin Tossing Task……………………………………………………………….77
Weighted Coin Tossing Task…………………………………………………….79
Exit Survey……………………………………………………………………….80

CHAPTER 3 RESULTS……………………………………………………………....81
Hospital Problems...………………………………………………………………….83
Analysis of Variance……………………………………………………………..84
Accuracy……………………………...………………………………………84
Representativeness Heuristic..……..……………...………………………….85
Reaction Time………………………………………………..…….…………86
Stuart-Maxwell Tests……………………………………………..….……….87
Summary…......................................................................................................88
v
Career Identification Task……………………………………………….....………..89
Analysis of Variance……………………………………………………………...90
Representativeness Heuristic…………………………………………………90
Difference……………………………………………….................................91
Reaction Time………………………….……………………………………..91
Summary……………………………………………………………………...93
Coin Tossing Task……………………………………………………………..…….94
Analysis of Variance…………………...………………………………..………..95
Accuracy……………………………………...……………...…………..……95
Representativeness Heuristic…………………………..……………………...96
Reaction Time…………………………………………………..……………..96
Stuart-Maxwell Tests……………………………………………..……….......98
Summary…………...........................................................................................99
Weighted Coin Tossing Task…...........................……………………….………......99
Analysis of Variance…………………………………………………….........…100
Accuracy………………………………………………………………..........100
Representativeness Heuristic…………….......………………..………….....101
Reaction Time………………………………………………………..……....102
Stuart-Maxwell Tests………………………………………………..…….....103
Summary……………………………………………………………..……....103

CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………105

CHAPTER 5 EXPERIMENT 2……………………………………………………...122

CHAPTER 6 METHODS……………… …………………………………………...123
Participants…………………………………………………………………...……..123
Materials and Procedure.......……………………………………………………….123
Subject Information Sheet……………………………………………………….123
Operation Span Task………….…………………………………………………124
WRAT………………………………….………………………………………..124
Weighted Coin Tossing Task………………….………………………………...124
Coin Tossing Task…………………………………….………………………...126

CHAPTER 7 RESULTS…………………………………………………………..…127
Coin Tossing Task…………………………………………..……………………...128
Analysis of Variance…………………………………………….………………129
Accuracy…………………………….……………...………………………..129
Representativeness Heuristic……………………………………………...…129
Reaction Time…...…………………………………………………………..130
Stuart-Maxwell Tests……………………………………….………………..131
Summary…………...…………….…………………………………………..133
Weighted Coin Tossing Task…………………………………………..…………...133
Analysis of Variance……………………………………………………….……134
Accuracy…………………...………………………………………………..134
vi
Representativeness Heuristic………………………………………………...135
Reaction Time………………………………………………………………..136
Stuart-Maxwell Tests………………………………………………………...138
Summary……………………………………………………………………..139

CHAPTER 9 DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………140

CHAPTER 10 GENERAL DISCUSSION……………………..……………………..143

APPENDIX A EXAMPLE PROBLEMS….………………..…..…………………….151

APPENDIX B FIGURES AND TABLES………………………………..………….162

APPENDIX C IRB APPROVALS...……………………………….……………...…204

BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………205

VITA……………………………………………………………………………………214

vii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The task of making a decision is common among everyday activities. Making a
decision does not always have to be some sort of challenging task; making a decision can
be as simple as choosing which route you will take to arrive at work. However, there are
some situations in which people must make decisions that may have life-altering
consequences. While it is understood that some people are better at making decisions
than others, the reason for this is not as well understood. Considering the fact that many
decisions require a person to consider probabilities and to keep track of many alternatives
at the same time, it can be deduced that both math ability and working memory capacity
can influence a person’s ability to make decisions. The purpose of the current paper is to
summarize the research in the field of decision making and to discuss how math ability
and working memory capacity are related to a person’s ability to make decisions.
Decision Making
Gilovich and Griffin’s (2002) review of the history of decision making research
indicates that one of the initial models of decision making was Simon’s (1955) model of
rational choice. The rational choice model indicates that after a person calculates the
probability of each possible outcome when making a decision, the person will choose the
outcome with the highest probability that is also the most useful. In other words, the
person not only calculates the probability of each outcome but also forms a ratio of
probability to usefulness and selects the most appropriate outcome. In the rational choice
model probability is the likelihood of the event occurring and usefulness indicates
whether or not the alternative will be applicable for the person’s individual situation. For
1