Explore the vast range of titles available.

This article presents a new approach to understanding strategic decision making inspired by the mathematics of quantum theory. Empirical support for this new approach is based on five different puzzling findings from past work on the prisoner dilemma game including the disjunction effect, the interference of predictions on actions in simultaneous and sequential games, question order effect, and the effects of cheap promises. Eight different quantum models are described, which purport to account for these puzzling findings. The competing models are systematically compared with respect to their capability of accounting for the five empirical findings.

Becoming a parent has been described as a dominant social norm, especially for women. Though some research has indicated changes toward more flexible gendered parenthood norms, methodological issues may be masking the continued presence of a gender double standard. In line with the condition for activation of double standards, we postulated that endorsement of the parenthood norm would vary depending on the response context. Our aim was to analyze the parenthood norm for women and for men taking into account the response context in a quantitative survey. In a French nationally-representative sample, more than 4,000 female and male adults were asked whether a woman/man can have a fulfilled life without having children in two questions presented in a random order. Based on the literature on question-order effects, the answer to the first question should be influenced by the participant’s personal background (e.g., gender, parental status), i.e., the personal background context, whereas the question asked second should be influenced by the comparison with the first question, i.e. the social relational context. In the personal background context, the own-gender parenthood norm was endorsed more strongly than the other-gender parenthood norm by both female and male participants. In contrast, in the social relational context, the parenthood norm for women was endorsed more strongly than the parenthood norm for men by both female and male participants. Our results showed a strong gender double standard observed only in the comparative context and illustrates the need to use appropriate survey methodology to examine the presence of gendered social norms.

Objectives This study aims to assess the impact of response option order and question order on the distribution of responses to the self-rated health (SRH) question and the relationship between SRH and other health-related measures. Methods In an online panel survey, we implement a 2-by-2 between-subjects factorial experiment, manipulating the following levels of each factor: (1) order of response options (\"excellent\" to \"poor\" versus \"poor\" to \"excellent\") and (2) order of SRH item (either preceding or following the administration of domain-specific health items). We use Chi-square difference tests, polychoric correlations, and differences in means and proportions to evaluate the effect of the experimental treatments on SRH responses and the relationship between SRH and other health measures. Results Mean SRH is higher (better health) and proportion in \"fair\" or \"poor\" health lower when response options are ordered from \"excellent\" to \"poor\" and SRH is presented first compared to other experimental treatments. Presenting SRH after domain-specific health items increases its correlation with these items, particularly when response options are ordered \"excellent\" to \"poor.\" Among participants with the highest level of current health risks, SRH is worse when it is presented last versus first. Conclusion While more research on the presentation of SRH is needed across a range of surveys, we suggest that ordering response options from \"poor\" to \"excellent\" might reduce positive clustering. Given the question order effects found here, we suggest presenting SRH before domain-specific health items in order to increase intersurvey comparability, as domain-specific health items will vary across surveys.

Researchers face difficult decisions about whether to ask potential moderators before or after a survey experiment. Competing concerns exist about priming respondents before the experiment and about introducing post-treatment bias. We replicate the classic “welfare” versus “assistance to the poor” survey experiment, randomly assigning respondents to be asked a battery of racial resentment questions either before or after the question wording experiment. We find little evidence that the question wording effect is different between those who are asked about racial resentment before versus after the experiment. Furthermore, we find little evidence that measured racial resentment is affected by this ordering or by the question wording treatment itself.

Background Core outcome set (COS) developers increasingly employ Delphi surveys to elicit stakeholders’ opinions of which outcomes to measure and report in trials of a particular condition or intervention. Research outside of Delphi surveys and COS development demonstrates that question order can affect response rates and lead to ‘context effects’, where prior questions determine an item’s meaning and influence responses. This study examined the impact of question order within a Delphi survey for a COS for oesophageal cancer surgery. Methods A randomised controlled trial was nested within the Delphi survey. Patients and health professionals were randomised to receive a survey including clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), where the PRO section appeared first or last. Participants rated (1–9) the importance of 68 items for inclusion in a COS (ratings 7–9 considered ‘essential’). Analyses considered the impact of question order on: (1) survey response rates; (2) participants’ responses; and (3) items retained at end of the survey. Results In total, 116 patients and 71 professionals returned completed surveys. Question order did not affect response rates among patients, but fewer professionals responded when clinical items appeared first (difference = 31.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 13.6–48.9%, P  = 0.001). Question order led to different context effects within patients and professionals. While patients rated clinical items highly, irrespective of question order, more PROs were rated essential when appearing last rather than first (difference = 23.7%, 95% CI = 10.5–40.8%). Among professionals, the greatest impact was on clinical items; a higher percentage rated essential when appearing last (difference = 11.6%, 95% CI = 0.0–23.3%). An interaction between question order and the percentage of PRO/clinical items rated essential was observed for patients ( P  = 0.025) but not professionals ( P  = 0.357). Items retained for further consideration at the end of the survey were dependent on question order, with discordant items (retained by one question order group only) observed in patients (18/68 [26%]) and professionals (20/68 [29%]). Conclusions In the development of a COS, participants’ ratings of potential outcomes within a Delphi survey depend on the context (order) in which the outcomes are asked, consequently impacting on the final COS. Initial piloting is recommended with consideration of the randomisation of items in the survey to reduce potential bias. Trial registration The randomised controlled trial reported within this paper was nested within the development of a core outcome set to investigate processes in core outcome set development. Outcomes were not health-related and trial registration was not therefore applicable.

There has been a growing trend to develop cognitive models based on the mathematics of quantum theory. A common theme in the motivation of such models has been findings which apparently challenge the applicability of classical formalisms, specifically ones based on classical probability theory. Classical probability theory has had a singularly important place in cognitive theory, because of its (in general) descriptive success but, more importantly, because in decision situations with low, equivalent stakes it offers a multiply justified normative standard. Quantum cognitive models have had a degree of descriptive success and proponents of such models have argued that they reveal new intuitions or insights regarding decisions in uncertain situations. However, can quantum cognitive models further benefit from normative justifications analogous to those for classical probability models? If the answer is yes, how can we determine the rational status of a decision, which may be consistent with quantum theory, but inconsistent with classical probability theory? In this paper, we review the proposal from Pothos, Busemeyer, Shiffrin, and Yearsley (2017), that quantum decision models benefit from normative justification based on the Dutch Book Theorem, in exactly the same way as models based on classical probability theory.

Question-order effects can considerably bias responses in surveys. Yet, question order is largely neglected in survey design. Most scales use one fixed sequence and do not consider how different sequences might affect the measure. We examined the impact of question-order effects on measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and life satisfaction in a sample of participants with spina bifida and a comparison group. Participants responded to an online questionnaire. They were randomly assigned to one of four versions of that questionnaire, manipulating the positions of an item asking about spina bifida and an item asking about global health. A question-order effect occurred for participants with spina bifida: participants who were asked about having spina bifida before rating HRQOL rated it to be higher than participants that were asked about having spina bifida after rating HRQOL. The comparison group was unaffected by the position of the item asking about spina bifida. The measure of life satisfaction was not affected by question order, nor did it differ between the two groups. Measures of HRQOL depend on when a specific diagnosis has to be indicated. Question order effects must be taken into account for the development of survey instruments and their interpretation.

A core outcome set (COS) for trials and evaluations of the effectiveness and efficacy of alcohol brief interventions (ABIs) has recently been established through international consensus to address the variability of outcomes evaluated. This is a protocol for studies to assess if there are order effects among the questions included in the COS. The 10 items of the COS are organized into 4 clusters. A factorial design will be used with 24 arms, where each arm represents 1 order of the 4 clusters. Individuals searching online for help will be asked to complete a questionnaire, and consenting participants will be randomized to 1 of the 24 arms (double-blind with equal allocation). Participants will be included if they are 18 years or older. The primary analyses will (1) estimate how the order of the clusters of outcomes affects how participants respond and (2) investigate patterns of abandonment of the questionnaire. Data collection is expected to commence in November 2020. A Bayesian group sequential design will be used with interim analyses planned for every 50 participants completing the questionnaire. Data collection will end no more than 24 months after commencement, and the results are expected to be published no later than December 2023. Homogenizing the outcomes evaluated in studies of ABIs is important to support synthesis, and the COS is an important step toward this goal. Determining whether there may be issues with the COS question order may improve confidence in using it and speed up its dissemination in the research community. We encourage others to adopt the protocol as a study within their trial as they adopt the ORBITAL (Outcome Reporting in Brief Intervention Trials: Alcohol) COS to build a worldwide repository and provide materials to support such analysis. ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN17954645; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN17954645. PRR1-10.2196/24175.

Eyewitnesses play an important role in the justice system. But suggestive questioning can distort eyewitness memory and confidence, and these distorted beliefs influence jurors (Loftus, Learning & Memory, 12 , 361–366, 2005 ; Penrod & Culter, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1 , 817–845, 1995 ). Recent research, however, hints that suggestion is not necessary: Simply changing the order of a set of trivia questions altered people’s beliefs about their accuracy on those questions (Weinstein & Roediger, Memory & Cognition, 38 , 366–376, 2010 , Memory & Cognition, 40 , 727–735, 2012 ). We wondered to what degree eyewitnesses' beliefs—and in turn the jurors who evaluate them—would be affected by this simple change to the order in which they answer questions. Across six experiments, we show that the order of questions matters. Eyewitnesses reported higher accuracy and were more confident about their memory when questions seemed initially easy, than when they seemed initially difficult. Moreover, jurors’ beliefs about eyewitnesses closely matched those of the eyewitnesses themselves. These findings have implications for eyewitness metacognition and for eyewitness questioning procedures.