#decisionmaking — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #decisionmaking, aggregated by home.social.
-
DATE: August 14, 2026 at 09:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Neuroscientists uncover a universal mechanism for human decision making
When humans learn new rules to make decisions, our brains appear to use the exact same information-gathering process that they use to process basic physical sensations. A recent study shows that a specific brain wave associated with collecting evidence readily adapts to track arbitrary, newly learned categories. The research was published as a preprint in The Journal of Neuroscience.
To understand how we make choices, neuroscientists often rely on a concept called evidence accumulation. This theory suggests that the brain acts like a bucket collecting drops of water. As sensory information comes in, the brain continuously gathers this evidence until it reaches a specific threshold, triggering a final decision.
Researchers can observe this accumulation process in real time using an electroencephalogram, or EEG. By placing sensors on a person’s scalp, scientists track electrical patterns known as brain waves. One specific pattern, called the centro-parietal positivity, reliably mirrors the evidence accumulation process.
The centro-parietal positivity presents as a gradual buildup of positive electrical voltage in the brain. This voltage climbs steadily while a person weighs their options. The electrical signal peaks just before the individual executes a response, like pressing a button.
Prior studies have shown that this brain wave tracks evidence from physical stimuli, such as a group of dots moving across a screen. As more dots move in the same direction, the electrical signal climbs faster. It also tracks information pulled from memory, like recalling trivia facts, or basic semantic knowledge.
Other research has found that the brain can accumulate evidence based on fixed, universally shared visual concepts. For instance, people naturally distinguish between vertical lines and diagonal lines. The brain uses these permanent visual frameworks to sort out incoming information.
Scientists did not know if the brain could apply this accumulation mechanism to entirely arbitrary rules. If a rule is newly invented and highly specific to one person, the evidence does not actually exist in the visual environment. Instead, the brain must compute the evidence internally by comparing what it sees against a newly learned, imaginary standard.
University of Nevada, Reno researchers Arianna Thoksakis and Edward F. Ester designed a study to test this question. They wanted to see if the brain’s decision-making machinery is truly flexible across different types of information. If so, the centro-parietal positivity should respond to abstract, newly learned rules just as it responds to direct sensory input.
The researchers recruited volunteers to complete a visual categorization task while hooked up to an EEG machine. Data from 38 participants was ultimately included in the analysis. The participants viewed circular images filled with hundreds of parallel lines.
During a training phase, participants had to categorize these images into two distinct groups by pressing specific keys on a keyboard. The researchers assigned a hidden, arbitrary dividing line for each participant. For example, a boundary might be set at exactly 73 degrees, completely invisible to the individual.
Any lines tilted counterclockwise to this specific angle belonged to the first category, while clockwise lines belonged to the second category. Through trial and error, guided by correct or incorrect feedback after every choice, the participants had to figure out their unique boundary. Most volunteers learned the invisible rule within a few short rounds.
Once the participants understood the rule, they moved on to the main task. The researchers presented lines tilted at specific angles relative to the participant’s hidden boundary. Some images featured lines tilted 45 degrees away from the boundary, making them easy to categorize. Other images were much harder, featuring lines tilted just two degrees away from the dividing line.
Behavioral results showed that participants were faster and more accurate when the lines were rotated further from their learned boundary. To connect this performance to the brain’s internal processes, the researchers used a mathematical framework called a drift-diffusion model. This approach separates the raw speed of a physical reaction from the cognitive process of weighing options.
The mathematical model estimates a specific metric known as the drift rate, which represents the speed of information gathering. The calculations confirmed that drift rates increased steadily as the lines moved further from the boundary. Essentially, the larger the angular distance from the hidden rule, the stronger the evidence became. This stronger evidence allowed the brain to accumulate information at a much faster pace, leading to quicker choices.
Next, the researchers examined the EEG data to see if the brain’s electrical signals matched this behavioral pattern. They measured the centro-parietal positivity buildup during the moments leading up to each participant’s button press. The electrical slope grew much steeper for images that were further from the category boundary.
The team then compared the behavioral math to the electrical brain recordings. They found a strong correlation across the participants. Individuals who showed a high behavioral sensitivity to the visual categories also displayed a highly sensitive electrical buildup in their brain waves.
This correlation suggests that the electrical signal is a direct reflection of the underlying decision variable. The brain’s machinery for accumulating physical sensations and its machinery for accumulating computed, abstract evidence are not separate systems. They appear to be a single, highly adaptable mechanism.
To verify that this electrical buildup was truly about decision-making, the researchers checked another region of the brain entirely. They analyzed beta waves over the motor cortex, which specifically control the physical movement of the hands and fingers. Because the right side of the brain controls the left hand and vice versa, researchers can track exactly when the brain prepares to push a button.
They needed to ensure the decision signals were not just the result of a participant flexing their muscles to press a key. While the motor cortex did show the expected activation as participants prepared to respond, this activity did not change based on the difficulty of the image. The motor preparation remained identical whether the lines were two degrees or 45 degrees from the boundary. This confirms that the centro-parietal positivity reflects the mental act of deciding, rather than the physical act of moving.
There are a few methodological details to consider regarding the study design. When an image suddenly appears on a screen, it causes a rapid burst of visual processing in the brain. Because participants responded relatively quickly, this initial visual response could overlap temporally with the decision-making brain waves being measured.
While this visual overlap is present, it is unlikely to fully explain the strong correlation seen between individual brain waves and computational drift rates. Future studies could separate the visual onset from the decision-making period to completely rule out any sensory interference.
Additionally, this experiment relied on a very specific type of visual feature. Participants evaluated a single dimension, which was the orientation of straight lines. The rule separating the categories was also absolute, relying on a hard dividing line.
In natural environments, categories are rarely this simple. Objects belong to categories based on a mixture of shapes, colors, and textures, and the boundaries are often probabilistic rather than absolute. Testing whether the brain’s evidence accumulation mechanism works the same way for these messier, real-world categories will require additional research.
The study, “Neural Measures of Human Decision Making Track Evidence Accumulation in Learned Space,” was authored by Arianna Thoksakis and Edward F. Ester.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #Neuroscience #DecisionMaking #EvidenceAccumulation #CentroParietalPositivity #EEG #DriftDiffusionModel #AbstractReasoning #VisualCategorization #NeuralMarkers #BrainWaves
-
DATE: August 14, 2026 at 09:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Neuroscientists uncover a universal mechanism for human decision making
When humans learn new rules to make decisions, our brains appear to use the exact same information-gathering process that they use to process basic physical sensations. A recent study shows that a specific brain wave associated with collecting evidence readily adapts to track arbitrary, newly learned categories. The research was published as a preprint in The Journal of Neuroscience.
To understand how we make choices, neuroscientists often rely on a concept called evidence accumulation. This theory suggests that the brain acts like a bucket collecting drops of water. As sensory information comes in, the brain continuously gathers this evidence until it reaches a specific threshold, triggering a final decision.
Researchers can observe this accumulation process in real time using an electroencephalogram, or EEG. By placing sensors on a person’s scalp, scientists track electrical patterns known as brain waves. One specific pattern, called the centro-parietal positivity, reliably mirrors the evidence accumulation process.
The centro-parietal positivity presents as a gradual buildup of positive electrical voltage in the brain. This voltage climbs steadily while a person weighs their options. The electrical signal peaks just before the individual executes a response, like pressing a button.
Prior studies have shown that this brain wave tracks evidence from physical stimuli, such as a group of dots moving across a screen. As more dots move in the same direction, the electrical signal climbs faster. It also tracks information pulled from memory, like recalling trivia facts, or basic semantic knowledge.
Other research has found that the brain can accumulate evidence based on fixed, universally shared visual concepts. For instance, people naturally distinguish between vertical lines and diagonal lines. The brain uses these permanent visual frameworks to sort out incoming information.
Scientists did not know if the brain could apply this accumulation mechanism to entirely arbitrary rules. If a rule is newly invented and highly specific to one person, the evidence does not actually exist in the visual environment. Instead, the brain must compute the evidence internally by comparing what it sees against a newly learned, imaginary standard.
University of Nevada, Reno researchers Arianna Thoksakis and Edward F. Ester designed a study to test this question. They wanted to see if the brain’s decision-making machinery is truly flexible across different types of information. If so, the centro-parietal positivity should respond to abstract, newly learned rules just as it responds to direct sensory input.
The researchers recruited volunteers to complete a visual categorization task while hooked up to an EEG machine. Data from 38 participants was ultimately included in the analysis. The participants viewed circular images filled with hundreds of parallel lines.
During a training phase, participants had to categorize these images into two distinct groups by pressing specific keys on a keyboard. The researchers assigned a hidden, arbitrary dividing line for each participant. For example, a boundary might be set at exactly 73 degrees, completely invisible to the individual.
Any lines tilted counterclockwise to this specific angle belonged to the first category, while clockwise lines belonged to the second category. Through trial and error, guided by correct or incorrect feedback after every choice, the participants had to figure out their unique boundary. Most volunteers learned the invisible rule within a few short rounds.
Once the participants understood the rule, they moved on to the main task. The researchers presented lines tilted at specific angles relative to the participant’s hidden boundary. Some images featured lines tilted 45 degrees away from the boundary, making them easy to categorize. Other images were much harder, featuring lines tilted just two degrees away from the dividing line.
Behavioral results showed that participants were faster and more accurate when the lines were rotated further from their learned boundary. To connect this performance to the brain’s internal processes, the researchers used a mathematical framework called a drift-diffusion model. This approach separates the raw speed of a physical reaction from the cognitive process of weighing options.
The mathematical model estimates a specific metric known as the drift rate, which represents the speed of information gathering. The calculations confirmed that drift rates increased steadily as the lines moved further from the boundary. Essentially, the larger the angular distance from the hidden rule, the stronger the evidence became. This stronger evidence allowed the brain to accumulate information at a much faster pace, leading to quicker choices.
Next, the researchers examined the EEG data to see if the brain’s electrical signals matched this behavioral pattern. They measured the centro-parietal positivity buildup during the moments leading up to each participant’s button press. The electrical slope grew much steeper for images that were further from the category boundary.
The team then compared the behavioral math to the electrical brain recordings. They found a strong correlation across the participants. Individuals who showed a high behavioral sensitivity to the visual categories also displayed a highly sensitive electrical buildup in their brain waves.
This correlation suggests that the electrical signal is a direct reflection of the underlying decision variable. The brain’s machinery for accumulating physical sensations and its machinery for accumulating computed, abstract evidence are not separate systems. They appear to be a single, highly adaptable mechanism.
To verify that this electrical buildup was truly about decision-making, the researchers checked another region of the brain entirely. They analyzed beta waves over the motor cortex, which specifically control the physical movement of the hands and fingers. Because the right side of the brain controls the left hand and vice versa, researchers can track exactly when the brain prepares to push a button.
They needed to ensure the decision signals were not just the result of a participant flexing their muscles to press a key. While the motor cortex did show the expected activation as participants prepared to respond, this activity did not change based on the difficulty of the image. The motor preparation remained identical whether the lines were two degrees or 45 degrees from the boundary. This confirms that the centro-parietal positivity reflects the mental act of deciding, rather than the physical act of moving.
There are a few methodological details to consider regarding the study design. When an image suddenly appears on a screen, it causes a rapid burst of visual processing in the brain. Because participants responded relatively quickly, this initial visual response could overlap temporally with the decision-making brain waves being measured.
While this visual overlap is present, it is unlikely to fully explain the strong correlation seen between individual brain waves and computational drift rates. Future studies could separate the visual onset from the decision-making period to completely rule out any sensory interference.
Additionally, this experiment relied on a very specific type of visual feature. Participants evaluated a single dimension, which was the orientation of straight lines. The rule separating the categories was also absolute, relying on a hard dividing line.
In natural environments, categories are rarely this simple. Objects belong to categories based on a mixture of shapes, colors, and textures, and the boundaries are often probabilistic rather than absolute. Testing whether the brain’s evidence accumulation mechanism works the same way for these messier, real-world categories will require additional research.
The study, “Neural Measures of Human Decision Making Track Evidence Accumulation in Learned Space,” was authored by Arianna Thoksakis and Edward F. Ester.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #Neuroscience #DecisionMaking #EvidenceAccumulation #CentroParietalPositivity #EEG #DriftDiffusionModel #AbstractReasoning #VisualCategorization #NeuralMarkers #BrainWaves
-
One choice shapes every step. Read today's reflection on standing firm with purpose. Visit the full blog and share your thoughts. #Leadership #PersonalGrowth #Mindset #Integrity #LifeLessons #Character #DecisionMaking #AbrahamLincoln #ThoughtLeadership
https://stayingalive.in/thought-of-the-day/standing-firm-begins-long.html -
Wow, an ode to the mundane—because nothing screams #innovation like sticking to the "boring" #tech that nobody wants to change. 🙄🎉 Apparently, the secret to #success is having a boss with a magical touch for "technical decision-making" that only a select few can appreciate. 🧙♂️✨
https://mcfunley.com/choose-boring-technology #mundane #decisionmaking #boringtech #HackerNews #ngated -
Wow, an ode to the mundane—because nothing screams #innovation like sticking to the "boring" #tech that nobody wants to change. 🙄🎉 Apparently, the secret to #success is having a boss with a magical touch for "technical decision-making" that only a select few can appreciate. 🧙♂️✨
https://mcfunley.com/choose-boring-technology #mundane #decisionmaking #boringtech #HackerNews #ngated -
**Conditional Probability:** The likelihood of an event occurring *given* another event has already occurred.
Ex: P(A|B) = P(A and B) / P(B).
Pro-Tip: The given event B *defines* your new, reduced sample space. Focus only on outcomes where B happened!
#ProbStats #DecisionMaking #STEM #StudyNotes -
New #preprint just dropped on #psyarxiv
Kanter, Haldar, Redish(2026). A novel view of microfinance: implications of the neuroscience of decision-making. psyArXiv.
We propose a novel perspective on what makes microfinance institutions work. We argue that the key is how the institutional structures interact with the computational underpinnings of decision-making to engender #trust .
Part of a new series I am apparently building on what it means to trust and what underlies the success of societies. 🤔
A collaboration with experts in #microfinance, and #sociology connecting to the #neuroscience of #DecisionMaking. And #economics.
-
New #preprint just dropped on #psyarxiv
Kanter, Haldar, Redish(2026). A novel view of microfinance: implications of the neuroscience of decision-making. psyArXiv.
We propose a novel perspective on what makes microfinance institutions work. We argue that the key is how the institutional structures interact with the computational underpinnings of decision-making to engender #trust .
Part of a new series I am apparently building on what it means to trust and what underlies the success of societies. 🤔
A collaboration with experts in #microfinance, and #sociology connecting to the #neuroscience of #DecisionMaking. And #economics.
-
Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM. I read that in high school and thought it was dumb. What if IBM sucks. The sentence is not advice about IBM. It is advice about being safe from blame, which is not the same as being right.
-
Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM. I read that in high school and thought it was dumb. What if IBM sucks. The sentence is not advice about IBM. It is advice about being safe from blame, which is not the same as being right.
-
People who think out loud have a distinct advantage when it comes to making smart decisions
-
People who think out loud have a distinct advantage when it comes to making smart decisions
-
DATE: August 10, 2026 at 08:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: The psychological factors associated with acting on a conspiracy theory
URL: https://www.psypost.org/the-psychological-factors-associated-with-acting-on-a-conspiracy-theory/
New research published in the British Journal of Social Psychology suggests that people who believe in conspiracy theories do not always act on those beliefs in a uniform way. Instead, the likelihood that a person will act on a conspiracy theory tends to depend on how certain they are about the belief and how relevant they think it is for their daily decisions. These findings provide evidence that specific qualities of a belief shape how it translates into everyday behavior.
Conspiracy beliefs involve the idea that a small group of people is secretly working to cause harm to society. Past research indicates that these beliefs can be related to real-world actions like avoiding vaccines or voting for specific candidates. However, the average statistical relationship between believing in a conspiracy and actually taking action is quite weak.
“People often want to know whether conspiracy beliefs predict behavior,” said Javier Granados Samayoa, an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at Texas Christian University. Granados Samayoa noted that reviewing large collections of past studies, known as meta-analyses, reveals an inconsistent pattern. “If you look at meta-analyses on this topic, the answer is that there is evidence for a relation, but it tends to be somewhat modest and the strength can vary such that sometimes the relation is large and sometimes it is not.”
To understand why some people act on their beliefs and others do not, Granados Samayoa and co-author Dolores Albarracín designed a framework based on belief strength. Belief strength refers to the meta-cognitive judgments people make about their own thoughts. In other words, it is how people evaluate and understand what they believe.
“So what might account for this variability? We proposed that conspiracy beliefs have different qualities that influence whether the conspiracy belief-behavior relation is weaker or stronger,” Granados Samayoa explained. “For this research, we focused on the following qualities: the certainty with which people hold the belief, the importance of the belief, and how actionable (i.e., useful and relevant for making decisions).”
The authors proposed a step-by-step pathway. They suspected that conspiracy beliefs shape attitudes, which are a person’s positive or negative evaluations of a specific action.
“We also know that beliefs often have an impact on behavior by influencing intermediary variables so we used people’s attitudes toward the behavior in question as a mediator variable,” Granados Samayoa added. In turn, the researchers predicted that these intermediary attitudes would forecast actual behavior.
To test this model, the researchers carried out three separate studies. The first study included 1,959 participants from an online survey platform. The authors measured participants’ belief in the great replacement conspiracy theory, which falsely claims a secretive group is trying to make White Americans a minority group.
Participants answered questions about how certain they were in this belief and how relevant it was for their decisions. The researchers also measured their attitudes toward actions like voting for politicians who support strict immigration policies. To ensure accuracy, the scientists controlled for demographic variables like age, race, and sex.
The first study indicated that believing in this conspiracy theory predicted more positive attitudes toward anti-immigration actions. This association was strongest among people who felt highly certain about their belief. The link was amplified even further when participants felt their belief was highly actionable, meaning they saw it as a useful guide for their behavior.
“I was surprised that actionability mainly functioned to amplify the influence of certainty and importance in shaping the conspiracy belief-behavior relation,” Granados Samayoa told PsyPost, noting that actionability intensified the other qualities rather than driving the relationship on its own.
The second study utilized a nationally representative sample of 2,572 adults in the United States. The scientists measured beliefs in conspiracy theories claiming that COVID-19 vaccines contain microchips or alter DNA. Participants rated how important the issue of vaccination was to them and how actionable they found their beliefs.
The authors also assessed attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine and asked participants if they had actually received at least one dose of the vaccine. This study accounted for factors like age, gender, race, education, political ideology, and income.
The second study provided evidence for the researchers’ full pathway. Belief in vaccine conspiracies predicted negative attitudes toward vaccination, which in turn predicted a lower likelihood of actually getting the vaccine. The negative association between the conspiracy belief and vaccine attitudes was strongest when the issue was rated as highly important. Just like in the first study, high perceived actionability amplified this effect.
The third study involved a sample of 1,551 adults in the United States and focused on the political domain. In the first phase of the study, participants reported their belief in a deep state conspiracy theory claiming that government officials were illegally working to undermine Donald Trump. The researchers measured the certainty and importance of this belief, as well as its perceived actionability.
They also measured participants’ attitudes toward political behaviors like donating money to a campaign or sharing information online. Three months later, the researchers followed up with the same participants. They asked how often the participants had actually engaged in those specific political behaviors during the intervening months.
The third study matched the patterns seen in the previous two. Belief in the deep state conspiracy theory robustly predicted positive attitudes toward supportive political actions. This link was strongest for people who reported high certainty and importance regarding their belief, combined with high perceived actionability. Additionally, those positive attitudes successfully predicted the actual frequency of political behaviors over the three-month follow-up period.
These patterns highlight a core finding across different domains. “Conspiracy beliefs are not created equal,” Granados Samayoa said. “You may have two people who seem to endorse a conspiracy theory to the same degree, but our work suggests that additional qualities of that belief like certainty and importance will shape how strongly that conspiracy belief predicts behavior, with actionability further amplifying this relation. Given that concerns about the negative behavioral consequences of conspiracy beliefs are so prominent, I think this additional information is worth keeping in mind when making decisions.”
These studies rely on statistical models to trace the pathway from beliefs to attitudes to behavior. This approach tracks variables in a way that limits the ability to definitively establish cause and effect. “Given our focus on measuring conspiracy beliefs, attitudes, and behavior as they exist in the real-world, our data are correlational,” Granados Samayoa explained.
It is possible that engaging in a behavior actually changes a person’s attitudes or beliefs, rather than the sequence flowing strictly from belief to action. The findings indicate that behavior is highly dependent on how a person subjectively weighs their own thoughts. If a belief is not viewed as important or useful for daily life, it tends to remain just a thought rather than a catalyst for action.
Future research could explore whether these properties of belief strength apply to non-conspiracy beliefs in the same way. Researchers might also test interventions designed to change a belief’s perceived actionability. By encouraging people to see a conspiratorial belief as less relevant to their personal choices, it might be possible to reduce harmful behaviors even if the underlying belief remains unchanged.
Going forward, Granados Samayoa hopes to expand on this framework. “I would like to provide a more comprehensive account of the different qualities of conspiracy beliefs that can shape how strongly they predict behavior,” he said.
The study, “Belief strength and the attitudinal and behavioural correlates of conspiracy beliefs,” was authored by Javier A. Granados Samayoa and Dolores Albarracín.
URL: https://www.psypost.org/the-psychological-factors-associated-with-acting-on-a-conspiracy-theory/
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #ConspiracyBeliefs #BeliefStrength #Actionability #VaccineConspiracy #DeepState #PoliticalBehavior #AttitudesAndBehavior #Certainty #DecisionMaking #BehavioralPsychology
-
DATE: August 10, 2026 at 08:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: The psychological factors associated with acting on a conspiracy theory
URL: https://www.psypost.org/the-psychological-factors-associated-with-acting-on-a-conspiracy-theory/
New research published in the British Journal of Social Psychology suggests that people who believe in conspiracy theories do not always act on those beliefs in a uniform way. Instead, the likelihood that a person will act on a conspiracy theory tends to depend on how certain they are about the belief and how relevant they think it is for their daily decisions. These findings provide evidence that specific qualities of a belief shape how it translates into everyday behavior.
Conspiracy beliefs involve the idea that a small group of people is secretly working to cause harm to society. Past research indicates that these beliefs can be related to real-world actions like avoiding vaccines or voting for specific candidates. However, the average statistical relationship between believing in a conspiracy and actually taking action is quite weak.
“People often want to know whether conspiracy beliefs predict behavior,” said Javier Granados Samayoa, an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at Texas Christian University. Granados Samayoa noted that reviewing large collections of past studies, known as meta-analyses, reveals an inconsistent pattern. “If you look at meta-analyses on this topic, the answer is that there is evidence for a relation, but it tends to be somewhat modest and the strength can vary such that sometimes the relation is large and sometimes it is not.”
To understand why some people act on their beliefs and others do not, Granados Samayoa and co-author Dolores Albarracín designed a framework based on belief strength. Belief strength refers to the meta-cognitive judgments people make about their own thoughts. In other words, it is how people evaluate and understand what they believe.
“So what might account for this variability? We proposed that conspiracy beliefs have different qualities that influence whether the conspiracy belief-behavior relation is weaker or stronger,” Granados Samayoa explained. “For this research, we focused on the following qualities: the certainty with which people hold the belief, the importance of the belief, and how actionable (i.e., useful and relevant for making decisions).”
The authors proposed a step-by-step pathway. They suspected that conspiracy beliefs shape attitudes, which are a person’s positive or negative evaluations of a specific action.
“We also know that beliefs often have an impact on behavior by influencing intermediary variables so we used people’s attitudes toward the behavior in question as a mediator variable,” Granados Samayoa added. In turn, the researchers predicted that these intermediary attitudes would forecast actual behavior.
To test this model, the researchers carried out three separate studies. The first study included 1,959 participants from an online survey platform. The authors measured participants’ belief in the great replacement conspiracy theory, which falsely claims a secretive group is trying to make White Americans a minority group.
Participants answered questions about how certain they were in this belief and how relevant it was for their decisions. The researchers also measured their attitudes toward actions like voting for politicians who support strict immigration policies. To ensure accuracy, the scientists controlled for demographic variables like age, race, and sex.
The first study indicated that believing in this conspiracy theory predicted more positive attitudes toward anti-immigration actions. This association was strongest among people who felt highly certain about their belief. The link was amplified even further when participants felt their belief was highly actionable, meaning they saw it as a useful guide for their behavior.
“I was surprised that actionability mainly functioned to amplify the influence of certainty and importance in shaping the conspiracy belief-behavior relation,” Granados Samayoa told PsyPost, noting that actionability intensified the other qualities rather than driving the relationship on its own.
The second study utilized a nationally representative sample of 2,572 adults in the United States. The scientists measured beliefs in conspiracy theories claiming that COVID-19 vaccines contain microchips or alter DNA. Participants rated how important the issue of vaccination was to them and how actionable they found their beliefs.
The authors also assessed attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine and asked participants if they had actually received at least one dose of the vaccine. This study accounted for factors like age, gender, race, education, political ideology, and income.
The second study provided evidence for the researchers’ full pathway. Belief in vaccine conspiracies predicted negative attitudes toward vaccination, which in turn predicted a lower likelihood of actually getting the vaccine. The negative association between the conspiracy belief and vaccine attitudes was strongest when the issue was rated as highly important. Just like in the first study, high perceived actionability amplified this effect.
The third study involved a sample of 1,551 adults in the United States and focused on the political domain. In the first phase of the study, participants reported their belief in a deep state conspiracy theory claiming that government officials were illegally working to undermine Donald Trump. The researchers measured the certainty and importance of this belief, as well as its perceived actionability.
They also measured participants’ attitudes toward political behaviors like donating money to a campaign or sharing information online. Three months later, the researchers followed up with the same participants. They asked how often the participants had actually engaged in those specific political behaviors during the intervening months.
The third study matched the patterns seen in the previous two. Belief in the deep state conspiracy theory robustly predicted positive attitudes toward supportive political actions. This link was strongest for people who reported high certainty and importance regarding their belief, combined with high perceived actionability. Additionally, those positive attitudes successfully predicted the actual frequency of political behaviors over the three-month follow-up period.
These patterns highlight a core finding across different domains. “Conspiracy beliefs are not created equal,” Granados Samayoa said. “You may have two people who seem to endorse a conspiracy theory to the same degree, but our work suggests that additional qualities of that belief like certainty and importance will shape how strongly that conspiracy belief predicts behavior, with actionability further amplifying this relation. Given that concerns about the negative behavioral consequences of conspiracy beliefs are so prominent, I think this additional information is worth keeping in mind when making decisions.”
These studies rely on statistical models to trace the pathway from beliefs to attitudes to behavior. This approach tracks variables in a way that limits the ability to definitively establish cause and effect. “Given our focus on measuring conspiracy beliefs, attitudes, and behavior as they exist in the real-world, our data are correlational,” Granados Samayoa explained.
It is possible that engaging in a behavior actually changes a person’s attitudes or beliefs, rather than the sequence flowing strictly from belief to action. The findings indicate that behavior is highly dependent on how a person subjectively weighs their own thoughts. If a belief is not viewed as important or useful for daily life, it tends to remain just a thought rather than a catalyst for action.
Future research could explore whether these properties of belief strength apply to non-conspiracy beliefs in the same way. Researchers might also test interventions designed to change a belief’s perceived actionability. By encouraging people to see a conspiratorial belief as less relevant to their personal choices, it might be possible to reduce harmful behaviors even if the underlying belief remains unchanged.
Going forward, Granados Samayoa hopes to expand on this framework. “I would like to provide a more comprehensive account of the different qualities of conspiracy beliefs that can shape how strongly they predict behavior,” he said.
The study, “Belief strength and the attitudinal and behavioural correlates of conspiracy beliefs,” was authored by Javier A. Granados Samayoa and Dolores Albarracín.
URL: https://www.psypost.org/the-psychological-factors-associated-with-acting-on-a-conspiracy-theory/
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #ConspiracyBeliefs #BeliefStrength #Actionability #VaccineConspiracy #DeepState #PoliticalBehavior #AttitudesAndBehavior #Certainty #DecisionMaking #BehavioralPsychology
-
People share the ’10 second decisions’ that meaningfully improved their lives forever
-
People share the ’10 second decisions’ that meaningfully improved their lives forever
-
I've been working on updating a decision making process in a #coop from #voting to #consensus inspired by #ietf #decisionMaking process when a colleague made me realize that consensus process is not compatible with many #neurodivergent cognitive styles. It disproportionately favors #Neurotypicals and extraverted ppl while putting more introverted and less verbal type people at a disadvantage. Also it's yet another "social capital" dominated decision making process. Less social capital - less likely you'll actually speak up against the crowd.
The "no one left behind" goal is not fulfilled by the "no loud opposition" decision process. What process does that? We're staying with the simplistic voting for now but adding a prolonged debate. Any ideas? How other #cooperatives do that? Especially #anarchist ones?
#autism #adhd #audhd #dyslexia #socialAnxiety #ptsd #spectrum #anarchism #anarchistOrder #socialism #cooperative
-
I've been working on updating a decision making process in a #coop from #voting to #consensus inspired by #ietf #decisionMaking process when a colleague made me realize that consensus process is not compatible with many #neurodivergent cognitive styles. It disproportionately favors #Neurotypicals and extraverted ppl while putting more introverted and less verbal type people at a disadvantage. Also it's yet another "social capital" dominated decision making process. Less social capital - less likely you'll actually speak up against the crowd.
The "no one left behind" goal is not fulfilled by the "no loud opposition" decision process. What process does that? We're staying with the simplistic voting for now but adding a prolonged debate. Any ideas? How other #cooperatives do that? Especially #anarchist ones?
#autism #adhd #audhd #dyslexia #socialAnxiety #ptsd #spectrum #anarchism #anarchistOrder #socialism #cooperative
-
A set of three experiments using numerical estimation problems showed that groups that decomposed the problem into smaller parts (the Fermi method) performed better than groups that simply pooled the estimates of individual members, and better than individuals who applied the Fermi method by themselves. This shows that there are better and worse ways of collective problem solving.
Summary: https://www.sciencealert.com/groups-really-do-make-better-decisions-but-not-for-the-reason-you-think
Original paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-76365-y
-
A set of three experiments using numerical estimation problems showed that groups that decomposed the problem into smaller parts (the Fermi method) performed better than groups that simply pooled the estimates of individual members, and better than individuals who applied the Fermi method by themselves. This shows that there are better and worse ways of collective problem solving.
Summary: https://www.sciencealert.com/groups-really-do-make-better-decisions-but-not-for-the-reason-you-think
Original paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-76365-y
-
DATE: August 5, 2026 at 08:38AM
SOURCE: SCIENCE DAILY MIND-BRAIN FEEDTITLE: Sitting up straight may improve your mood and decision-making
URL: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/08/260804034624.htm
A simple change in posture may subtly affect how people feel and make decisions. Participants who sat upright reported greater feelings of pride and took more successful risks in a virtual balloon game than those who hunched over. Most did not realize researchers had influenced their posture, helping rule out the possibility that they were merely responding to expectations. The results suggest workplace ergonomics could influence more than physical comfort.
URL: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/08/260804034624.htm
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #SittingUpStraight #PostureAndMood #BodyLanguage #Ergonomics #DecisionMaking #PositiveMindset #WorkplaceWellness #RiskTaking #MoodBoost #NonconsciousInfluence
-
DATE: August 5, 2026 at 08:38AM
SOURCE: SCIENCE DAILY MIND-BRAIN FEEDTITLE: Sitting up straight may improve your mood and decision-making
URL: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/08/260804034624.htm
A simple change in posture may subtly affect how people feel and make decisions. Participants who sat upright reported greater feelings of pride and took more successful risks in a virtual balloon game than those who hunched over. Most did not realize researchers had influenced their posture, helping rule out the possibility that they were merely responding to expectations. The results suggest workplace ergonomics could influence more than physical comfort.
URL: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/08/260804034624.htm
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #SittingUpStraight #PostureAndMood #BodyLanguage #Ergonomics #DecisionMaking #PositiveMindset #WorkplaceWellness #RiskTaking #MoodBoost #NonconsciousInfluence
-
The Lost Chapter of Santiago’s Second Personal Legend
What’s a quote that perfectly describes your outlook on life? The Second Personal Legend of SantiagoAn Official Ministry Response to Today's Jetpack Daily Prompt The first Personal Legend is finding the treasure. The second is understanding why you wanted it in the first place. The Ministry of Satirical Affairs recently obtained an unverified transcript from a parallel universe. Any resemblance to existing literary works is purely coincidental and legally advisable.Most readers know […]https://satiregpt.wordpress.com/2026/08/05/the-lost-chapter-of-santiagos-second-personal-legend/
-
The Lost Chapter of Santiago’s Second Personal Legend
What’s a quote that perfectly describes your outlook on life? The Second Personal Legend of SantiagoAn Official Ministry Response to Today's Jetpack Daily Prompt The first Personal Legend is finding the treasure. The second is understanding why you wanted it in the first place. The Ministry of Satirical Affairs recently obtained an unverified transcript from a parallel universe. Any resemblance to existing literary works is purely coincidental and legally advisable.Most readers know […]https://satiregpt.wordpress.com/2026/08/05/the-lost-chapter-of-santiagos-second-personal-legend/
-
Your open tabs are unfinished decisions, not bookmarks
https://gettably.tech/articles/open-tabs-are-unfinished-decisions/
Comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49172034
#HackerNews #openTabs #unfinishedDecisions #productivity #webBrowsing #decisionMaking
-
Your open tabs are unfinished decisions, not bookmarks
https://gettably.tech/articles/open-tabs-are-unfinished-decisions/
Comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49172034
#HackerNews #openTabs #unfinishedDecisions #productivity #webBrowsing #decisionMaking
-
🔍 “Clear thinking creates confident investing.”
#Markets #Investing #StoneCapitalGrowth #Clarity #DecisionMaking #SocialMedia
-
🔍 “Clear thinking creates confident investing.”
#Markets #Investing #StoneCapitalGrowth #Clarity #DecisionMaking #SocialMedia
-
RE: https://mastodon.thi.ng/@toxi/117030783136853538
Being given a 100% AI generated score for your own mental work hurts. It also hurts because the result is presented as absolute and undeniable, with no path for appeal or inspection. A decision presented as a black-box score with no insights revealed how the score has been computed or the specific reasons/patterns which triggered "detection" to begin with[1]... A score produced by a third party which inserted itself as middleman in the communication flow between writers and readers and claims authority and arbiter status over deciding what is slop and what is not. Another layer of statistical machine learning to detect patterns/anomalies of statistical means of language generation...
In this specific case, I don't really care too much what these tools say. I know what I wrote and rewrote, over hours, and to the best of my ability (as non-native English speaker).
The myth of computational objectivity prevails. For decades it was about blind belief in algorithms, now shifted to AI models. The wider public and most decision makers neither seem to understand the difference, nor do they care about the inherent dangers. Pragmatism at all costs. The genie is out and can't be put back. The problems (if acknowledged at all) are always treated as temporary minor hurdles rather than fundamental systemic issues.
It's upsetting how Little Britain's "Computer Says No"[2] attitude and blind outsourcing of black-box classification and decision-making to machines has already been so extremely normalized and is impacting more and more of our lives, for many people/minorities in far more serious and outright deadly ways... 😭
[1] Having worked with many forms of machine learning myself, I know first hand that lack of detailed observability has been plaguing ML disciplines for decades. I think these are also some of the most worrisome aspects of more widely deploying LLM affine tech. Whilst some minor progress has been made, these efforts are severely challenged and thwarted by the exponentially growing model sizes, architectural complexity and distributed nature of agents.
-
RE: https://mastodon.thi.ng/@toxi/117030783136853538
Being given a 100% AI generated score for your own mental work hurts. It also hurts because the result is presented as absolute and undeniable, with no path for appeal or inspection. A decision presented as a black-box score with no insights revealed how the score has been computed or the specific reasons/patterns which triggered "detection" to begin with[1]... A score produced by a third party which inserted itself as middleman in the communication flow between writers and readers and claims authority and arbiter status over deciding what is slop and what is not. Another layer of statistical machine learning to detect patterns/anomalies of statistical means of language generation...
In this specific case, I don't really care too much what these tools say. I know what I wrote and rewrote, over hours, and to the best of my ability (as non-native English speaker).
The myth of computational objectivity prevails. For decades it was about blind belief in algorithms, now shifted to AI models. The wider public and most decision makers neither seem to understand the difference, nor do they care about the inherent dangers. Pragmatism at all costs. The genie is out and can't be put back. The problems (if acknowledged at all) are always treated as temporary minor hurdles rather than fundamental systemic issues.
It's upsetting how Little Britain's "Computer Says No"[2] attitude and blind outsourcing of black-box classification and decision-making to machines has already been so extremely normalized and is impacting more and more of our lives, for many people/minorities in far more serious and outright deadly ways... 😭
[1] Having worked with many forms of machine learning myself, I know first hand that lack of detailed observability has been plaguing ML disciplines for decades. I think these are also some of the most worrisome aspects of more widely deploying LLM affine tech. Whilst some minor progress has been made, these efforts are severely challenged and thwarted by the exponentially growing model sizes, architectural complexity and distributed nature of agents.
-
Bad Judgment Looks Like Chemistry
By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News
Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — August 3, 2026
There is a moment late in many nights out when someone turns to a friend and says the same sentence.
“Oh my God, we have chemistry.”
That sentence usually arrives after several drinks, loud music, and an hour or two of conversation that may or may not make sense in the morning.
It feels exciting. It feels spontaneous. It feels like something important is happening.
But very often, what people are calling chemistry is something much simpler.
Bad judgment.
Alcohol and the Illusion of Connection
Alcohol changes how the brain processes social signals. It reduces anxiety, lowers inhibition, and increases the brain’s reward response to attention and novelty.
That combination creates a powerful illusion.
People seem funnier than they are. Stories seem more interesting than they are. Flirting feels more intense than it really is.
In other words, alcohol makes ordinary interaction feel extraordinary.
Two strangers in a bar may genuinely believe they have discovered something special about each other. But the reality is that both people are experiencing the same chemical effect at the same time.
The chemistry they feel may have more to do with alcohol than compatibility.
Performance Mode
Bars are also places where people perform.
They are not neutral environments. Everyone there is presenting a carefully edited version of themselves.
People dress differently. They exaggerate stories. They laugh louder and act more confident. Small flaws disappear in dim lighting and loud music.
Alcohol amplifies that performance.
Someone who might normally appear quiet or awkward can suddenly seem charming. Someone who might normally appear arrogant may instead seem bold and exciting.
The person across the table may be real—but the version of them you are meeting is often heavily filtered by the environment.
Morning Light
One of the reasons drunken hookups often feel strange the next day is that the performance ends.
Morning light is less forgiving than bar lighting.
The loud music is gone. The alcohol is wearing off. The exaggerated personalities people adopted during the night fade away.
What remains are two people who may not have nearly as much in common as they thought.
Sometimes the difference is small. Sometimes it is enormous.
Many people have experienced the quiet morning realization that the person who seemed fascinating at midnight feels like a complete stranger at breakfast.
Compatibility vs. Excitement
Real compatibility takes time to reveal itself.
It grows out of conversation, shared values, and the slower process of learning how another person thinks and behaves over time.
Alcohol speeds everything up artificially.
Excitement replaces understanding. Attention replaces trust. Attraction replaces compatibility.
The result is a connection built on temporary conditions rather than lasting ones.
That doesn’t make the attraction imaginary.
It just means it may not survive daylight.
The Question Worth Asking
Before declaring that someone you met after several drinks is the most interesting person in the room, it may be worth asking one simple question.
Would this conversation still feel the same if neither of us had been drinking?
Sometimes the answer is yes.
But very often, the answer is no.
And if the connection only works in a room full of alcohol, noise, and dim lighting, it may not be chemistry at all.
It may just be the environment doing its job.
Princess raised her head from the floor and gave one of the puppies a sharp little growl for chewing on something they clearly shouldn’t have been touching.
The puppy dropped it immediately.
Princess sighed, put her head back down, and went back to sleep.
Even the dog understands the difference between curiosity and a bad decision.
#alcoholCulture #decisionMaking #nightlife #publicHealth #relationships #sexualHealth #socialBehavior -
Bad Judgment Looks Like Chemistry
By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News
Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — August 3, 2026
There is a moment late in many nights out when someone turns to a friend and says the same sentence.
“Oh my God, we have chemistry.”
That sentence usually arrives after several drinks, loud music, and an hour or two of conversation that may or may not make sense in the morning.
It feels exciting. It feels spontaneous. It feels like something important is happening.
But very often, what people are calling chemistry is something much simpler.
Bad judgment.
Alcohol and the Illusion of Connection
Alcohol changes how the brain processes social signals. It reduces anxiety, lowers inhibition, and increases the brain’s reward response to attention and novelty.
That combination creates a powerful illusion.
People seem funnier than they are. Stories seem more interesting than they are. Flirting feels more intense than it really is.
In other words, alcohol makes ordinary interaction feel extraordinary.
Two strangers in a bar may genuinely believe they have discovered something special about each other. But the reality is that both people are experiencing the same chemical effect at the same time.
The chemistry they feel may have more to do with alcohol than compatibility.
Performance Mode
Bars are also places where people perform.
They are not neutral environments. Everyone there is presenting a carefully edited version of themselves.
People dress differently. They exaggerate stories. They laugh louder and act more confident. Small flaws disappear in dim lighting and loud music.
Alcohol amplifies that performance.
Someone who might normally appear quiet or awkward can suddenly seem charming. Someone who might normally appear arrogant may instead seem bold and exciting.
The person across the table may be real—but the version of them you are meeting is often heavily filtered by the environment.
Morning Light
One of the reasons drunken hookups often feel strange the next day is that the performance ends.
Morning light is less forgiving than bar lighting.
The loud music is gone. The alcohol is wearing off. The exaggerated personalities people adopted during the night fade away.
What remains are two people who may not have nearly as much in common as they thought.
Sometimes the difference is small. Sometimes it is enormous.
Many people have experienced the quiet morning realization that the person who seemed fascinating at midnight feels like a complete stranger at breakfast.
Compatibility vs. Excitement
Real compatibility takes time to reveal itself.
It grows out of conversation, shared values, and the slower process of learning how another person thinks and behaves over time.
Alcohol speeds everything up artificially.
Excitement replaces understanding. Attention replaces trust. Attraction replaces compatibility.
The result is a connection built on temporary conditions rather than lasting ones.
That doesn’t make the attraction imaginary.
It just means it may not survive daylight.
The Question Worth Asking
Before declaring that someone you met after several drinks is the most interesting person in the room, it may be worth asking one simple question.
Would this conversation still feel the same if neither of us had been drinking?
Sometimes the answer is yes.
But very often, the answer is no.
And if the connection only works in a room full of alcohol, noise, and dim lighting, it may not be chemistry at all.
It may just be the environment doing its job.
Princess raised her head from the floor and gave one of the puppies a sharp little growl for chewing on something they clearly shouldn’t have been touching.
The puppy dropped it immediately.
Princess sighed, put her head back down, and went back to sleep.
Even the dog understands the difference between curiosity and a bad decision.
#alcoholCulture #decisionMaking #nightlife #publicHealth #relationships #sexualHealth #socialBehavior -
La scelta del piatto rivela leadership, fiducia e posizionamento: a tavola il business comunica prima ancora delle parole: https://quotidianoweb.it/economia/la-scelta-del-piatto-e-una-scelta-di-posizionamento/ #quotidianoweb #Leadership #Business #Networking #PersonalBranding #Comunicazione #DecisionMaking #Manager #BusinessTips #Relazioni
-
La scelta del piatto rivela leadership, fiducia e posizionamento: a tavola il business comunica prima ancora delle parole: https://quotidianoweb.it/economia/la-scelta-del-piatto-e-una-scelta-di-posizionamento/ #quotidianoweb #Leadership #Business #Networking #PersonalBranding #Comunicazione #DecisionMaking #Manager #BusinessTips #Relazioni
-
An Unsophisticated Decision-Making Machine
Your AI always has an opinion. It has never, not once, had a stake in what happens to you. Don’t confuse the two, especially not on the days when its opinion is better than yours. That will happen. That’s exactly when the AI decision making costume fits best.
The decision is always yours.
-
An Unsophisticated Decision-Making Machine
Your AI always has an opinion. It has never, not once, had a stake in what happens to you. Don’t confuse the two, especially not on the days when its opinion is better than yours. That will happen. That’s exactly when the AI decision making costume fits best.
The decision is always yours.
-
A Segmentation Approach to Push Ahead Innovation Processes
In product innovation, a company needs information about consumers, existing products and the competition to build-on when developing its ideas, concepts and designs for candidate products. It is usually a multi-stage process that involves planning, research (i.e., market, consumer & product), development and testing wherein information from different sources is likely to flow-in all the time. A particular issue of importance is identifying promising target segments and understanding how […]https://csc-behaviour.com/2026/07/31/a-segmentation-approach-to-push-ahead-innovation-processes/
