Models, Inferences, and Decisions

What We Do

Recent research in cognitive and behavioral sciences is increasingly illuminating the basic mechanisms of human reasoning and cognition, as well as their limitations and systematic deviations from normative theories of rational inference and decision-making. It also raises interesting questions concerning the foundations and methods of different scientific disciplines, and the analysis of scientific reasoning in general.

This research line puts together theoretical and formal models of inference and decision-making with empirical approaches to the study of human reasoning and cognition. The aim is twofold: to better understand, and possibly improve, how people reason and make choices in different contexts, both in ordinary life and in science; and to clarify and strengthen the methodology and foundations of cognitive, behavioral, and social sciences.

Topics we work, or plan to work, on include:

ONGOING PROJECTS

Who We Are

GUSTAVO CEVOLANI
Principal InvestigatorAssociate Professor, PhDScholar, ResearchGate, Personal page
FOLCO PANIZZA
Assistant Professor, PhDScholar
MARCO MARINI
Research Collaborator, PhD
DAVIDE CORACI
PhD StudentPersonal page
ALESSANDRO DEMICHELIS
PhD StudentPersonal page
FEDERICA RUZZANTE
PhD Student
MATTEO PIRISI
PhD Student
ALICE ANDREA CHINAIA
PhD Student
RUGGERO RONI
PhD Student
PIERO AVITABILE
PhD Student

Guest members

CAMILLA FRANCESCA COLOMBOPhDAcademia.edu 
CHIARA LUCIFORAPhDResearchGate, LinkedIn
EDOARDO PERUZZIPersonal page
LUCA TAMBOLOPhDAcademia.edu 
MARCO MARINI
Research Collaborator, PhD
DARIO MENICAGLI
Research Collaborator, PhD
GIOVANNA MANCINI
Research Collaborator
LORENZO CASINI
Research Collaborator, PhD

Past members

LINA LISSIAPhD
LUCA POLONIOPhDScholar, ResearchGate, 

What We Publish

I want to be safe: understanding the main drivers behind vaccination choice throughout the pandemic

Marco Marini, Alessandro Demichelis, Dario Menicagli, Giovanna Mancini, Folco Panizza, Ennio Bilancini & Gustavo CevolaniBMC Public Health (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18511-z
Our study reveals a dynamic shift in vaccine efficacy and safety perceptions throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially influencing vaccination compliance. Initially perceived as more effective than safe, this assessment reversed by the time of the third dose. Beliefs regarding safety, rather than efficacy, played a significant role in anticipating future vaccinations (e.g., the booster dose). Safety-focused messages positively affected vaccination intent, while efficacy-focused messages showed limited impact. We also observed a changing trend in reasons for vaccination, with a decline in infection-related reasons and an increase in social related ones. Furthermore, trust dynamics evolved differently for public authorities and the scientific community.

Abductive reasoning in cognitive neuroscience: weak and strong reverse inference

Calzavarini, F.; Cevolani, G. Synthese, 2022. DOI: 10.1007/s11229-022-03585-2
Reverse inference is a crucial inferential strategy used in cognitive neuroscience to derive conclusions about the engagement of cognitive processes from patterns of brain activation. While widely employed in experimental studies, it is now viewed with increasing scepticism within the neuroscience community. One problem with reverse inference is that it is logically invalid, being an instance of abduction in Peirce’s sense. In this paper, we offer the first systematic analysis of reverse inference as a form of abductive reasoning and highlight some relevant implications for the current debate. We start by formalising an important distinction that has been entirely neglected in the literature, namely the distinction between weak (strategic) and strong (justificatory) reverse inference. Then, we rely on case studies from recent neuroscientific research to systematically discuss the role and limits of both strong and weak reverse inference; in particular, we offer the first exploration of weak reverse inference as a discovery strategy within cognitive neuroscience.

Lateral reading and monetary incentives to spot disinformation about science

Folco Panizza, Piero Ronzani, Carlo Martini, Simone Mattavelli, Tiffany Morisseau & Matteo MotterliniScientific Reports, 2022. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-09168-y
Disinformation about science can impose enormous economic and public health burdens. A recentlyproposed strategy to help online users recognise false content is to follow the techniques ofprofessional fact checkers, such as looking for information on other websites (lateral reading) andlooking beyond the first results suggested by search engines (click restraint). In two preregisteredonline experiments (N = 5387), we simulated a social media environment and tested twointerventions, one in the form of a pop-up meant to advise participants to follow such techniques,the other based on monetary incentives. We measured participants’ ability to identify whetherinformation was scientifically valid or invalid. Analysis of participants’ search style reveals that bothmonetary incentives and pop-up increased the use of fact-checking strategies. Monetary incentiveswere overall effective in increasing accuracy, whereas the pop-up worked when the source ofinformation was unknown. Pop-up and incentives, when used together, produced a cumulative effecton accuracy. We suggest that monetary incentives enhance content relevance, and could be combinedwith fact-checking techniques to counteract disinformation.

Our Collaborations

Our Talks