How do (and don't) we take other perspectives?
Speaker: Dr Steven Samuel (City, University of London)

Room: FG05. We will also stream the video at
https://city-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/93568812451?pwd=Qk5RSlBNcDRMUUpxSnpHRFRqN0VsQT09 .

Abstract:
Perspective taking, whether in the classic 'Theory of Mind' sense or in the more perceptual domain (e.g. visual perspective taking) has long been considered a cornerstone of social cognition. Recent years have given rise to new research threads, such as 'spontaneous' perspective taking, perceptual simulation (quasi-perceptual experiences of others' perceptual input), and embodied or 'grounded' processes, particularly in spatial perspective taking paradigms. In this talk I will present evidence for or against each of these hypotheses, and highlight the increasingly clear importance of individual differences over traditional domain-specific arguments.

From bias to sound intuiting: the role of automatization in effective one-shot debiasing interventions
Speaker: Dr Esther Boissin

Room: Online. We will also stream the video at
https://city-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/93568812451?pwd=Qk5RSlBNcDRMUUpxSnpHRFRqN0VsQT09 upon request.
Abstract:
Reasoners often show biases when solving reasoning problems. Recent studies have shown that providing brief explanations can enhance their performance. However, the nature of this training effect remains unclear. Does the training enable participants to correct erroneous intuitions through deliberation, or does it help them develop more accurate intuitions? To address this, we conducted three studies with distinct reasoning tasks associated with different biases (bat-and-ball, base-rate, and conjunction fallacy tasks). A two-response paradigm requiring participants to provide an initial response under time pressure and cognitive load helped us identify the initial intuitive response, which preceded the final response given after deliberation. Our findings suggest that after a brief training intervention, participants initially biased were more inclined to solve problems correctly from the intuitive stage, rather than by revising their initial incorrect responses. This implies that the training primarily enhances correct intuitive responses. In a follow-up study, we test the debiasing intervention on non-WEIRD (non-Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) participants, the Himba of Namibia, with diverse demographics to better understand the mechanisms underlying the success of the debiasing process. All together, these studies enabled us to gain a better understanding of the factors that facilitate debiasing, particularly at an intuitive level.

ChatGPT for academic publishing
Speaker: Dr. Jutta Tobias Mortlock

Room FG05. We will also stream the talk at
https://city-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/93568812451?pwd=Qk5RSlBNcDRMUUpxSnpHRFRqN0VsQT09.

Abstract:
tba

The development of cognitive control: additive or interactive executive functions?
Speaker: Prof Christopher Jarrold (University of Bristol)

Room: C305. We will also stream the video at
https://city-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/93568812451?pwd=Qk5RSlBNcDRMUUpxSnpHRFRqN0VsQT09 upon request.
Abstract:
Executive or cognitive control refers to our ability to guide our behaviour in line with our internal goals rather than simply responding to action cues in the environment. Executive control develops with age and may be compromised in some neurodevelopmental conditions. Studies of the typical and atypical development of executive control in children have attempted to measure its hypothesised subcomponents (including working memory and inhibition, and often shifting in addition) but have tended to use separate tasks to index these. This risks introducing task-specific noise and relies on the arguable assumption that such tasks are relatively process pure. In this talk I describe a study in which we attempted to circumvent these issues by systematically varying working memory and inhibitory loads within the same task. Specifically, in our pre-registered study (