- Pretest with engineering graduate students.
- The within-subjects may not work. Between subjects may only work.
- Immediately goes to the price estimates with cursor.
- Stated that has "no idea" about the prices.
- Didn't really read the instructions.
- Wanted to change the order of price in 1982 with the inflation note.
- Confused by the adjust for inflation attention check.
- Unable to understand the inflation issue.
- Should ask about how likely the estimates are to be true vs. how likely the story is to be true.
- Fact-checking go-up vs. go-down was confusing
- Found the story writing interesting
- Put coal prices first before story 2.
- Felt that people may have little confidence in story 2.
- Similarity judgment for story two cannot be made because one didn't make a prediction.
- Is 0-100 confidence scale for predictions too large a range?
- Found the story writing complex.
- Wondered whether we are trying to measure biases or actually care about the predictions.
- Lower resolution for confidence judgments (by 5s rather than 1s).
- Felt that the first story captured the entirety of the knowledge the person had. Felt that new data could shake that confidence to some degree, but could not change the story because no new knowledge was there.
- Felt that there was no basis for knowigh whether the first story is true or not, so changing it makes no sense.
- No justification for changing beliefs. Data did not affect what knowledge was used.
- For the 2015 to 2040 attention check for something that is more central to content.
- Confused about whether we want correct answers or this person's interpretation.
- Begin with 2 sentences about the purpose of the study. Would have to explain the seemingly ancillary measures.
- Insert content here...
- Add to error repertiore...
- The survey needs a consistent framing to reduce questions and suspicion.