Glöckner, Andreas

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Frontiers in Psychology"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","6"],["dc.contributor.author","Dorrough, Angela Rachael"],["dc.contributor.author","Gloeckner, Andreas"],["dc.contributor.author","Hellmann, Dshamilja M."],["dc.contributor.author","Ebert, Irena"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T09:58:16Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T09:58:16Z"],["dc.date.issued","2015"],["dc.description.abstract","In two comprehensive and fully incentivized studies, we investigate the development of ingroup favoritism as one of two aspects of parochial altruism in repeated social dilemmas. Specifically, we test whether ingroup favoritism is a fixed phenomenon that can be observed from the very beginning and remains stable over time, or whether it develops (increases vs. decreases) during repeated contact. lngroup favoritism is assessed through cooperation behavior in a repeated continuous prisoner's dilemma where participants sequentially interact with 10 members of the ingroup (own city and university) and subsequently with 10 members of the outgroup (other city and university), or vice versa. In none of the experiments do we observe initial differences in cooperation behavior for interaction partners from the ingroup, as compared to outgroup, and we only observe small differences in expectations regarding the interaction partners' cooperation behavior. After repeated interaction, however, including a change of groups, clear ingroup favoritism can be observed. Instead of being due to gradual and potentially biased updating of expectations, we found that these emerging differences were mainly driven by the change of interaction partners' group membership that occurred after round 10. This indicates that in social dilemma settings ingroup favoritism is to some degree dynamic in that it is enhanced and sometimes only observable if group membership is activated by thinking about both the interaction with the ingroup and the outgroup."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00476"],["dc.identifier.isi","000354536600002"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/37336"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DeepGreen Import"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Frontiers Media S.A."],["dc.relation.eissn","1664-1078"],["dc.relation.issn","1664-1078"],["dc.rights","http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"],["dc.title","The development of ingroup favoritism in repeated social dilemmas"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","35"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Judgment and Decision Making"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","50"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","9"],["dc.contributor.author","Glöckner, Andreas"],["dc.contributor.author","Bröder, Arndt"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T09:46:43Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T09:46:43Z"],["dc.date.issued","2014"],["dc.description.abstract","Glöckner and Bröder (2011) have shown that for 77.5% of their participants’ decision making behavior in decisions involving recognition information and explicitly provided additional cues could be better described by weightedcompensatory Parallel Constraint Satisfaction (PCS) Models than by non-compensatory strategies such as recognition heuristic (RH) or Take the Best (TTB). We investigate whether this predominance of PCS models also holds in memorybased decisions in which information retrieval is effortful and cognitively demanding. Decision strategies were analyzed using a maximum-likelihood strategy classification method, taking into account choices, response times and confidence ratings simultaneously. In contrast to the memory-based-RH hypothesis, results show that also in memory-based decisions for 62% of the participants behavior is best explained by a compensatory PCS model. There is, however, a slight increase in participants classified as users of the non-compensatory strategies RH and TTB (32%) compared to the previous study, mirroring other studies suggesting effects of costly retrieval."],["dc.identifier.fs","610640"],["dc.identifier.isi","000330626500004"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/12969"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/34944"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Migrated from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Soc Judgment & Decision Making"],["dc.relation.issn","1930-2975"],["dc.rights","CC BY 3.0"],["dc.rights.access","openAccess"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0"],["dc.subject","parallel constraint satisfaction; probabilistic inferences; recognition; strategy classification; decision time; confidence"],["dc.subject.ddc","570"],["dc.title","Cognitive integration of recognition information and additional cues in memory-based decisions"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","989"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","6"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Instructional Science"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","1007"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","41"],["dc.contributor.author","Gloeckner, Andreas"],["dc.contributor.author","Towfigh, Emanuel V."],["dc.contributor.author","Traxler, Christian"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T09:18:08Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T09:18:08Z"],["dc.date.issued","2013"],["dc.description.abstract","In a comprehensive empirical investigation (N = 71,405) we analyzed the development of legal expertise in a critical 1-year period of academic legal training in which advanced law students start practicing to solve complex cases. We were particularly interested in the functional form of the learning curve and inter-individual differences in learning. Performance increases monotonically with the number of practice exams following a slightly concave learning curve without any considerable kinks. Considering the performance development over time, however, the curve is not monotonic and shows intermediate drops in performance. We provide evidence which suggests that these drops are due to cyclic drops in motivation. There are about equally sized marginal effects of practicing law exams in general and practicing exams in the specific area of law. However, students with high (vs. low) initial performance profit more from practicing exams within a specific area of law whereas students with low initial performance profit more from practicing exams in general. The concave increase in performance with the number of practicing exams is mainly driven by individuals with low initial performance. Those with high initial performance mainly display a linear learning trend. We discuss the practical implications of these findings for academic legal training."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1007/s11251-013-9266-5"],["dc.identifier.isi","000326247200001"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/10381"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/28337"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Springer"],["dc.relation.issn","1573-1952"],["dc.relation.issn","0020-4277"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.title","Development of legal expertise"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","21555"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Scientific Reports"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","6"],["dc.contributor.author","Mischkowski, Dorothee"],["dc.contributor.author","Gloeckner, Andreas"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T10:18:12Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T10:18:12Z"],["dc.date.issued","2016"],["dc.description.abstract","Cooperation is essential for the success of societies and there is an ongoing debate whether individuals have therefore developed a general spontaneous tendency to cooperate or not. Findings that cooperative behavior is related to shorter decision times provide support for the spontaneous cooperation effect, although contrary results have also been reported. We show that cooperative behavior is better described as person x situation interaction, in that there is a spontaneous cooperation effect for prosocial but not for proself persons. In three studies, one involving population representative samples from the US and Germany, we found that cooperation in a public good game is dependent on an interaction between individuals' social value orientation and decision time. Increasing deliberation about the dilemma situation does not affect persons that are selfish to begin with, but it is related to decreasing cooperation for prosocial persons that gain positive utility from outcomes of others and score high on the related general personality trait honesty/humility. Our results demonstrate that the spontaneous cooperation hypothesis has to be qualified in that it is limited to persons with a specific personality and social values. Furthermore, they allow reconciling conflicting previous findings by identifying an important moderator for the effect."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1038/srep21555"],["dc.identifier.isi","000370041700001"],["dc.identifier.pmid","26876773"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/13138"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/41388"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Nature Publishing Group"],["dc.relation.issn","2045-2322"],["dc.rights","CC BY 4.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0"],["dc.title","Spontaneous cooperation for prosocials, but not for proselfs: Social value orientation moderates spontaneous cooperation behavior"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","84"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Acta Psychologica"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","96"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","146"],["dc.contributor.author","Soellner, Anke"],["dc.contributor.author","Broeder, Arndt"],["dc.contributor.author","Gloeckner, Andreas"],["dc.contributor.author","Betsch, Tilmann"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T09:44:21Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T09:44:21Z"],["dc.date.issued","2014"],["dc.description.abstract","When decision makers are confronted with different problems and situations, do they use a uniform mechanism as assumed by single-process models (SPMs) or do they choose adaptively from a set of available decision strategies as multiple-strategy models (MSMs) imply? Both frameworks of decision making have gathered a lot of support, but only rarely have they been contrasted with each other. Employing an information intrusion paradigm for multi-attribute decisions from givens, SPM and MSM predictions on information search, decision outcomes, attention, and confidence judgments were derived and tested against each other in two experiments. The results consistently support the SPM view: Participants seemingly using a \"take-the-best\" (TTB) strategy do not ignore TTB-irrelevant information as MSMs would predict, but adapt the amount of information searched, choose alternative choice options, and show varying confidence judgments contingent on the quality of the \"irrelevant\" information. The uniformity of these findings underlines the adequacy of the novel information intrusion paradigm and comprehensively promotes the notion of a uniform decision making mechanism as assumed by single-process models. (C) 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.12.007"],["dc.identifier.isi","000331489400012"],["dc.identifier.pmid","24441266"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/11376"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/34375"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Elsevier Science Bv"],["dc.relation.issn","1873-6297"],["dc.relation.issn","0001-6918"],["dc.rights","CC BY-NC-ND 3.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0"],["dc.title","Single-process versus multiple-strategy models of decision making: Evidence from an information intrusion paradigm"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]