Contextual cueing during lethal force training: How target design and repetition can alter threat assessments.

Lethal force training requires individuals to make threat assessments, which involves holistic scenario processing to identify potential threats. Photorealistic targets can make threat/non-threat judgments substantially more genuine and challenging compared to simple cardboard or silhouette targets. Unfortunately, repeated target use also brings unintended consequences that could invalidate threat assessment processes conducted during training. Contextually rich or unique targets could be implicitly memorable in a way that allows observers to recall weapon locations rather than forcing observers to conduct a naturalistic assessment. Experiment 1 demonstrated robust contextual cueing effects in a well-established shoot/don't-shoot stimulus set, and Experiment 2 extended this finding from complex scene stimuli to simple actor-only stimuli. Experiment 3 demonstrated that these effects also occurred among trained professionals using rifles rather than computer-based tasks. Taken together, these findings demonstrate the potential for uncontrolled target repetition to alter the fundamental processes of threat assessment during lethal force training.

That's out! How expert umpires make leg-before-wicket judgements in cricket.

Despite evidence that elite-level cricket umpires are highly accurate in making leg-before-wicket (LBW) judgements, there is limited understanding as to how they make these judgements. In this study, we explored the explicit LBW decision-making expertise of elite-level cricket umpires (N = 10) via 10 individual semi-structured interviews. Using thematic analysis, we aimed to identify the sources of information that umpires incorporate into their decision-making process. Results indicated that umpires engage in intentional pre-delivery information-gathering to guide their expectations, and to set context-specific parameters as to what would constitute an LBW dismissal. Not only do umpires use information about the ball trajectory, but they also use additional information about the condition of the pitch, the action-capabilities and susceptibilities of players, and the unique requirements of different match formats. Umpires reported employing a gaze-anchor strategy when gathering information for each delivery and described the process of this information as initially intuitive, before engaging in deeper post-hoc reasoning. Findings highlight the importance of including contextual information when exploring officials' decisions and may inform future training interventions for cricket umpires.

Neural correlates of metacognition: Disentangling the brain circuits underlying prospective and retrospective second-order judgments through noninvasive brain stimulation.

Metacognition encompasses the capability to monitor and control one's cognitive processes, with metamemory and metadecision configuring among the most studied higher order functions. Although imaging experiments evaluated the role of disparate brain regions, neural substrates of metacognitive judgments remain undetermined. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize and discuss the available evidence concerning the neural bases of metacognition which has been collected by assessing the effects of noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) on human subjects' metacognitive capacities. Based on such literature analysis, our goal is, at first, to verify whether prospective and retrospective second-order judgments are localized within separate brain circuits and, subsequently, to provide compelling clues useful for identifying new targets for future NIBS studies. The search was conducted following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines among PubMed, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, PSYNDEX, MEDLINE, and ERIC databases. Overall, 25 studies met the eligibility criteria, yielding a total of 36 experiments employing transcranial magnetic stimulation and 16 ones making use of transcranial electrical stimulation techniques, including transcranial direct current stimulation and transcranial alternating current stimulation. Importantly, we found that both perspective and retrospective judgments about both memory and perceptual decision-making performances depend on the activation of the anterior and lateral portions of the prefrontal cortex, as well as on the activity of more caudal regions such as the premotor cortex and the precuneus. Combining this evidence with results from previous imaging and lesion studies, we advance ventromedial prefrontal cortex as a promising target for future NIBS studies.

Do inconclusive forensic decisions disadvantage the innocent?

OBJECTIVE: Two experiments examined the potential for inconclusive forensic decisions to disadvantage the innocent. HYPOTHESES: Both experiments tested the hypothesis that inconclusive decisions produce more incriminating legal judgments than do clearly exculpatory forensic decisions. Experiment 2 also examined whether this hypothesized effect conformed to a confirmation bias, a communication error, or perceptual accuracy. METHOD: In Experiment 1 (N = 492), a forensic expert testified that physical evidence recovered from a crime scene either matched or did not match a suspect's evidence or produced an inconclusive result. In Experiment 2 (N = 1,002), a forensic expert testified that physical evidence recovered from a crime scene either matched or did not match a suspect's evidence, produced an inconclusive result, or was unsuitable for analysis. A fifth condition omitted the forensic evidence and expert testimony. RESULTS: The inconclusive decision produced less incriminating legal judgments than did the match forensic decision (|d|average = 0.96), more incriminating legal judgments than did the no-match forensic decision (|d|average = 0.62), and equivalent legal judgments to the unsuitable decision (|d|average = 0.12) and to legal judgments made in the absence of forensic evidence (|d|average = 0.07). These results suggest that participants interpreted the inconclusive decision to be forensically neutral, which is consistent with a communication error. CONCLUSION: The findings provide preliminary support for the idea that inconclusive decisions can put the innocent at risk of wrongful conviction by depriving them of a clearly exculpatory forensic decision. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Forming Evaluations of Moral Character: How Are Multiple Pieces of Information Prioritized and Integrated?

Evaluating other people's moral character is a crucial social cognitive task. However, the cognitive processes by which people seek out, prioritize, and integrate multiple pieces of character-relevant information have not been studied empirically. The first aim of this research was to examine which character traits are considered most important when forming an impression of a person's overall moral character. The second aim was to understand how differing levels of trait expression affect overall character judgments. Four preregistered studies and one supplemental study (total N = 720), using five different measures of importance and sampling undergraduates, online workers, and community members, found that our participants placed the most importance on the traits honest, helpful, compassionate, loyal, and responsible. Also, when integrating the information that they have learned, our participants seemed to engage in a simple averaging process in which all available, relevant information is combined in a linear fashion to form an overall evaluation of moral character. This research provides new insights into the cognitive processes by which evaluations of moral character are formed.

A noise audit of human-labeled benchmarks for machine commonsense reasoning.

With the advent of large language models, evaluating and benchmarking these systems on important AI problems has taken on newfound importance. Such benchmarking typically involves comparing the predictions of a system against human labels (or a single 'ground-truth'). However, much recent work in psychology has suggested that most tasks involving significant human judgment can have non-trivial degrees of noise. In his book, Kahneman suggests that noise may be a much more significant component of inaccuracy compared to bias, which has been studied more extensively in the AI community. This article proposes a detailed noise audit of human-labeled benchmarks in machine commonsense reasoning, an important current area of AI research. We conduct noise audits under two important experimental conditions: one in a smaller-scale but higher-quality labeling setting, and another in a larger-scale, more realistic online crowdsourced setting. Using Kahneman's framework of noise, our results consistently show non-trivial amounts of level, pattern, and system noise, even in the higher-quality setting, with comparable results in the crowdsourced setting. We find that noise can significantly influence the performance estimates that we obtain of commonsense reasoning systems, even if the 'system' is a human; in some cases, by almost 10 percent. Labeling noise also affects performance estimates of systems like ChatGPT by more than 4 percent. Our results suggest that the default practice in the AI community of assuming and using a 'single' ground-truth, even on problems requiring seemingly straightforward human judgment, may warrant empirical and methodological re-visiting.

The effect of task load, information reliability and interdependency on anticipation performance.

In sport, coaches often explicitly provide athletes with stable contextual information related to opponent action preferences to enhance anticipation performance. This information can be dependent on, or independent of, dynamic contextual information that only emerges during the sequence of play (e.g. opponent positioning). The interdependency between contextual information sources, and the associated cognitive demands of integrating information sources during anticipation, has not yet been systematically examined. We used a temporal occlusion paradigm to alter the reliability of contextual and kinematic information during the early, mid- and final phases of a two-versus-two soccer anticipation task. A dual-task paradigm was incorporated to investigate the impact of task load on skilled soccer players' ability to integrate information and update their judgements in each phase. Across conditions, participants received no contextual information (control) or stable contextual information (opponent preferences) that was dependent on, or independent of, dynamic contextual information (opponent positioning). As predicted, participants used reliable contextual and kinematic information to enhance anticipation. Further exploratory analysis suggested that increased task load detrimentally affected anticipation accuracy but only when both reliable contextual and kinematic information were available for integration in the final phase. This effect was observed irrespective of whether the stable contextual information was dependent on, or independent of, dynamic contextual information. Findings suggest that updating anticipatory judgements in the final phase of a sequence of play based on the integration of reliable contextual and kinematic information requires cognitive resources.

Probabilistic causal reasoning under time pressure.

While causal reasoning is a core facet of our cognitive abilities, its time-course has not received proper attention. As the duration of reasoning might prove crucial in understanding the underlying cognitive processes, we asked participants in two experiments to make probabilistic causal inferences while manipulating time pressure. We found that participants are less accurate under time pressure, a speed-accuracy-tradeoff, and that they respond more conservatively. Surprisingly, two other persistent reasoning errors-Markov violations and failures to explain away-appeared insensitive to time pressure. These observations seem related to confidence: Conservative inferences were associated with low confidence, whereas Markov violations and failures to explain were not. These findings challenge existing theories that predict an association between time pressure and all causal reasoning errors including conservatism. Our findings suggest that these errors should not be attributed to a single cognitive mechanism and emphasize that causal judgements are the result of multiple processes.

Time and memory distrust shape the dynamics of recollection and belief-in-occurrence.

The current study examined how people's metamemory judgments of recollection and belief-in-occurrence change over time. Furthermore, we examined to what extent these judgments are affected by memory distrust - the subjective appraisal of one's memory functioning - as measured by the Memory Distrust Scale (MDS) and the Squire Subjective Memory Scale (SSMQ). Participants (N = 234) studied pictorial stimuli and were tested on some of these stimuli later in the same session, but were tested on other stimuli 1, 2, 4, 8, and 17 days later. Recollection and belief ratings were correlated highly and followed similar declining patterns over time. However, belief decreased relatively more slowly than recollection, such that the discrepancy between recollection and belief increased over time. Memory distrust moderated the association between recollection and belief, with this association being weaker among people who reported greater (versus lower) memory distrust. Memory distrust also interacted with retention period to predict memory judgments. Two measures of memory distrust diverged in their predictive power. In particular, only the MDS predicted the spontaneous reporting of nonbelieved memories. Our results provide support to the theoretical perspective that belief-in-occurrence is a summative judgment informed not only by recollective phenomenology but also by metamemorial beliefs.

The power of meaningful numbers: Attorney guidance and jury deliberation improve the reliability and gist validity of damage awards.

OBJECTIVE: A mock jury experiment tested the effects of attorney guidance and jury deliberation to mitigate the challenges that civil juries face in assessing damages. HYPOTHESES: We hypothesized that two types of attorney guidance (per diem, per diem + lump sum), theoretically based in the Hans-Reyna model of jury decision making, would improve jury decision making compared with no guidance against five key benchmarks: injury assessment, validity, reliability, verbatim-gist coherence, and metacognitive experience. We expected that deliberation would increase reliability of, confidence in, and polarization of awards compared with predeliberation. METHOD: Community members (N = 317; 61% women; 86.1% White; Mage = 48.68 years) deliberated in 54 mock juries. Participants watched a videotaped trial involving an automobile accident in which two plaintiffs sustained concussions (one mild and one severe). The plaintiffs' attorney's closing arguments varied attorney guidance (no guidance, per diem, per diem + lump sum). Mock jurors provided individual judgments before deliberating as a jury and reaching group verdicts and awards. RESULTS: Juries performed well against benchmarks. Providing gist-based guidance with a meaningful award recommendation increased the validity of jurors' individual damage awards (η²p jurors = .03) and the reliability of jury damage awards (η²p jurors = .04; η²p jurors = .20); gist-based guidance without an award recommendation did not improve performance against benchmarks and increased perceptions of decision-making difficulty (η²p = .13). Deliberation increased reliability of (η²p = .17), confidence in (η²p = .02), and polarization of (d = 2.14) awards compared with predeliberation. CONCLUSION: Juries performed well against objective benchmarks of performance (injury assessment, validity, reliability, and verbatim-gist coherence), and deliberation improved performance compared with predeliberation decisions. Jury decisions were further influenced by attorney closing arguments (the guidance manipulation), especially when the attorney requests a lump sum, which can serve as a powerful influence on jury awards, mainly by setting an upper limit. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Legal actors' and laypersons' utility judgments of eyewitness lineup procedures and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Recent attempts to model the relative performances of eyewitness lineup procedures necessarily include theoretical assumptions about the various costs/benefits, or utilities, of different identification outcomes. We collected data to incorporate empirically derived utilities into such modeling as well as data on various stakeholders' views of lineup procedures as tertiary objectives. HYPOTHESES: This research was exploratory; therefore, we did not have a priori hypotheses. METHOD: We surveyed judges' (n = 70), prosecutors' (n = 28), police officers' (n = 82), and laypersons' (n = 191) opinions about eyewitness identification procedures and the utilities of outcomes of eyewitness identification procedures. We incorporated the utility judgments into models comparing the desirability of various lineup reforms and compared policy preferences between our samples. RESULTS: All samples frequently mentioned estimator and system variables in open-ended evaluations of lineup procedures, but legal samples mentioned system variables more often than did laypersons. Reflector variables (e.g., confidence) were mentioned less often across the board, as was the scientific basis/standardization of identification policy (especially among laypersons). Utility judgments of various identification outcomes indicated that judges adopt values more closely aligned with normative legal ethics (i.e., the Blackstone ratio), whereas other stakeholders (especially laypersons) depart significantly from those standards. Utility models indicated general agreement among samples in lineup procedure preferences, which varied as a function of culprit-presence base rates. CONCLUSION: Although legal stakeholders vary in how they value eyewitness identification outcomes, their values imply relatively consistent policy preferences that sometimes depart from scientific recommendations. Nonetheless, all samples expressed support for using scientific research to inform legal policy regarding eyewitness evidence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

GRADE guidance 37: rating imprecision in a body of evidence on test accuracy.

OBJECTIVES: To provide guidance on rating imprecision in a body of evidence assessing the accuracy of a single test. This guide will clarify when Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) users should consider rating down the certainty of evidence by one or more levels for imprecision in test accuracy. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A project group within the GRADE working group conducted iterative discussions and presentations at GRADE working group meetings to produce this guidance. RESULTS: Before rating the certainty of evidence, GRADE users should define the target of their certainty rating. GRADE recommends setting judgment thresholds defining what they consider a very accurate, accurate, inaccurate, and very inaccurate test. These thresholds should be set after considering consequences of testing and effects on people-important outcomes. GRADE's primary criterion for judging imprecision in test accuracy evidence is considering confidence intervals (i.e., CI approach) of absolute test accuracy results (true and false, positive, and negative results in a cohort of people). Based on the CI approach, when a CI appreciably crosses the predefined judgment threshold(s), one should consider rating down certainty of evidence by one or more levels, depending on the number of thresholds crossed. When the CI does not cross judgment threshold(s), GRADE suggests considering the sample size for an adequately powered test accuracy review (optimal or review information size [optimal information size (OIS)/review information size (RIS)]) in rating imprecision. If the combined sample size of the included studies in the review is smaller than the required OIS/RIS, one should consider rating down by one or more levels for imprecision. CONCLUSION: This paper extends previous GRADE guidance for rating imprecision in single test accuracy systematic reviews and guidelines, with a focus on the circumstances in which one should consider rating down one or more levels for imprecision.

Faculty Development on the Use of a Clinical Judgment Model in the Pre-licensure Nursing Curriculum.

Clinical judgment is an essential component of safe nursing practice that pre-licensure nursing students should develop by graduation from accredited nursing programs. For novice nurses, the consequences of underdeveloped clinical judgment skills that do not meet the demands of clinical practice are serious. This theory-practice gap correlates with increased numbers of errors occurring during care delivery, resulting in poorer patient outcomes. From a student perspective, this problem correlates with lower first-time pass rates on the NCLEX licensing exam. For nurse educators, there are uncertainties about how to resolve this complex and costly problem, but faculty development is one evidence-based solution to explore. The purpose of this article is to describe a three-pronged quality improvement project consisting of: 1) a faculty development session to teach faculty to implement the National Council State Boards of Nursing's Clinical Judgment Model (CJM) in their courses; 2) the use of the Clinical Judgment Tool; and 3) the implementation of a faculty champion to sustain and maintain ongoing faculty momentum to foster clinical judgment. This article focuses on how faculty can develop their own CJM faculty development session and use a CJM across the course curriculum.

The Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric: 17 Years Later.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 17 years ago, the Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric (LCJR) was published to provide a common language and trajectory of students' development to think like a nurse. METHOD: This article traces the uses of the LCJR from creation to the present and cites lessons learned from its use. RESULTS: During the intervening years, the LCJR has been used effectively as a debriefing guide in simulation and as a research instrument, as well as for formative assessment. The LCJR has been translated or is in process in 19 languages besides English. CONCLUSION: This article provides evidence of the efficacy of the LCJR and discusses important lessons learned. [J Nurs Educ. 2024;63(3):149-155.].

Evaluating the Importance of Clinical Judgment in Entry-Level Nursing.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the extent to which clinical judgment is important in entry-level nursing practice. METHOD: A task analysis linkage study methodology based on a large-scale, comprehensive practice analysis was used for the study. The practice analysis validated more than 200 entry-level nursing tasks, and the linkage study sought to evaluate the importance of clinical judgment overall and for each specific task expectation. RESULTS: The results provide confirmatory evidence of the importance of clinical judgment. In addition, the work provides a comprehensive list of entry-level tasks and their associated clinical judgment importance. CONCLUSION: Clinical judgment is a vital skill at entry into the profession and is expected to grow over time. This study offers insights on the extent to which clinical judgment is a necessary skill and provides direct evidence of its importance for specific entry-level tasks. [J Nurs Educ. 2024;63(3):156-162.].

Reflective Clinical Judgment Questions to Educate the Next Generation of Nurses.

BACKGROUND: The complexity of health care requires entry-level nurses to have competent clinical judgment skills. In response, a nursing program created Reflective Clinical Judgment Questions (RCJQ) to guide students in the development of clinical judgment. METHOD: The RCJQ incorporates the Clinical Judgment Measurement Model, the National Council of State Boards of Nursing's action questions, and the American Association of Colleges of Nursing's core competencies for professional nursing education. The RCJQ includes cognitive process questions and self-reflection questions aligned to the prelicensure subcompetencies to direct student thinking and build a routine for clinical decision making. RESULTS: The RCJQ provides faculty with a framework to teach clinical judgment and incorporates self-reflective questions to guide decision making for safe and effective client care. CONCLUSION: The RCJQ streamlines the clinical judgment process and guides students to achieve essential outcomes in classroom, clinical, and simulation settings to prepare for clinical practice. [J Nurs Educ. 2024;63(3):182-185.].

Classroom Innovation Using the NCJMM: Preparing Nursing Students for the Next Generation NCLEX.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing demand for classroom creativity to increase engagement and build clinical judgment skills for nursing students. This article describes the design and implementation of an interactive classroom activity to enhance the development of clinical judgment while simultaneously orienting students to the new NCLEX Next Generation testing model. METHOD: Faculty developed an interactive unfolding case study incorporating the six dimensions of the NCSBN Clinical Judgment Measurement Model. The case study question types were adapted to use an interactive learning platform for first-year nursing students. Students' perceptions of learning, engagement, and clinical judgment were surveyed. RESULTS: Student responses regarding the case study implementation indicated this method was effective in maintaining engagement and persistence, as well as promoting nursing decision making. CONCLUSION: The time used for building innovative classroom activities is well spent to meet the objective of enhancing clinical judgment in the next generation of nursing students. [J Nurs Educ. 2024;63(3):188-191.].

AI in medical diagnosis: AI prediction & human judgment.

AI has long been regarded as a panacea for decision-making and many other aspects of knowledge work; as something that will help humans get rid of their shortcomings. We believe that AI can be a useful asset to support decision-makers, but not that it should replace decision-makers. Decision-making uses algorithmic analysis, but it is not solely algorithmic analysis; it also involves other factors, many of which are very human, such as creativity, intuition, emotions, feelings, and value judgments. We have conducted semi-structured open-ended research interviews with 17 dermatologists to understand what they expect from an AI application to deliver to medical diagnosis. We have found four aggregate dimensions along which the thinking of dermatologists can be described: the ways in which our participants chose to interact with AI, responsibility, 'explainability', and the new way of thinking (mindset) needed for working with AI. We believe that our findings will help physicians who might consider using AI in their diagnosis to understand how to use AI beneficially. It will also be useful for AI vendors in improving their understanding of how medics want to use AI in diagnosis. Further research will be needed to examine if our findings have relevance in the wider medical field and beyond.