The Role of Verbal Representation Level in Decision Making under Uncertain Categorization



In this study we replicated (N=77) the effect of a decision making under uncertain categorization (i.e. basing the decision on a few categories simultaneously): when uncertainty was high, participants considered a few categories for a decision more often than when uncertainty was low, therefore, they made rational decisions more often [6]. Moreover, in Chen and colleagues’ study making rational decisions was not affected by the framing of category information. In the next part of our study (N=134) we further measured participants’ level of verbal representation using a scale from adapted version of Internal Representation Questionnaire [14] and found a relationship between framing of the task and rational decisions. Low level of verbal representation was followed by the greatest number of rational decisions in tasks with the choice frame, whereas middle and high levels of verbal representation were accompanied by the biggest number of rational decisions in tasks with the category frame. Since the level of verbal representation did not directly influence on the quantity of rational decisions, we proposed that verbal representation is connected with shifting attention either on categorical differences or on information about decision consequences during decision making process.

General Information

Keywords: decision making, rational decision, Bayes rule, category, verbalization, representation

Journal rubric: Cognitive Psychology

Article type: scientific article


Funding. The reported study was funded by Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR), project number №20-013-00698.

Received: 07.08.2020


For citation: Sudorgina Y.V., Kotova T.N., Kotov A.A. The Role of Verbal Representation Level in Decision Making under Uncertain Categorization. Eksperimental'naâ psihologiâ = Experimental Psychology (Russia), 2022. Vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 199–212. DOI: 10.17759/exppsy.2022150313. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)


  1. Anderson J.R. The adaptive nature of human categorization. Psychological Review, 1991. Vol. 98, no. 3, pp. 409—422.
  2. Ashby F.G., Alfonso-Reese L.A., Turken A.U., Waldron E.M. A neuropsychological theory of multiple systems in category learning. Psychological Review, 1998. Vol. 105, no. 3, pp. 442—481.
  3. Brinthaupt T.M., Hein M.B., Kramer T.E. The self-talk scale: development, factor analysis, and validation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 2009. Vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 82—92. DOI:10.1080/00223890802484498
  4. Calvete E., Estévez A., Landín C., Martínez Y., Cardeñoso O., Villardón L., Villa A.Self-talk and affective problems in college students: valence of thinking and cognitive content specificity. The Spanish journal of psychology, 2005. Vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 56—67. DOI:10.1017/s1138741600004960
  5. Chen S.Y., Ross B.H., Murphy G.L. Implicit and explicit processes in category-based induction: is induction best when we don’t think? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2014a. Vol. 143, no.1, pp. 227—246. DOI:10.1037/a0032064
  6. Chen S.Y., Ross B.H., Murphy G.L. Decision making under uncertain categorization. Frontiers in psychology, 2014. Vol. 5, pp. 991. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00991
  7. Duncan R.M., Cheyne J.A. Incidence and functions of self-reported private speech in young adults: A self-verbalization questionnaire. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 1999. Vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 133—136. DOI:10.1037/h0087081
  8. Giffin C., Wilkenfeld D., Lombrozo T. The explanatory effect of a label: Explanations with named categories are more satisfying. Cognition, 2017. Vol. 168, pp. 357—369. DOI:10.1016/j. cognition.2017.07.011
  9. Griffiths O., Hayes B.K., Newell B. Feature-based versus category-based induction with uncertain categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2012. Vol. 38, pp. 576—595. DOI:10.1037/a0026038
  10. Hayes B.K., Newell B.R. Induction with uncertain categories: When do people consider the category alternatives? Memory & Cognition, 2009. Vol. 37, pp. 730—743. DOI:10.3758/MC.37.6.730
  11. Hemmatian B., Sloman S.A. Community appeal: Explanation without information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2018. Vol. 147, no. 11, pp. 1677—1712. DOI:10.1037/xge0000478
  12. Lupyan G., Zettersten M. Does vocabulary help structure the mind? PsycArchive, 2020. DOI:10.31234/
  13. Murphy G.L., Ross B.H. Predictions from uncertain categorizations. Cognitive Psychology, 1994. Vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 148—193. DOI:10.1006/cogp.1994.1015
  14. Roebuck H., Lupyan G. The Internal Representations Questionnaire: Measuring modes of thinking. Behavior Research Methods, 2020. Vol. 52. no. 5. pp. 2053—2070. DOI:10.3758/s13428-020-01354-y
  15. Siegrist M. Inner speech as a cognitive process mediating self-consciousness and inhibiting self-deception. Psychological Reports, 1995. Vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 259—265. DOI:10.2466/pr0.1995.76.1.259

Information About the Authors

Yu. V. Sudorgina, Intern researcher, Laboratory for the Neurobiological Foundations of Cognitive Development, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Sirius University of Science and Technology (Sochi, Russia), Moscow, Russia, ORCID:, e-mail:

Tatyana N. Kotova, PhD in Psychology, Senior Researcher, Laboratory for the Cognitive Research, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia, ORCID:, e-mail:

Alexey A. Kotov, PhD in Psychology, Senior Researcher of the Laboratory for cognitive research, Department of Psychology,, National Research University 'Higher School of Economics, Sirius University of Science and Technology, Sochi, Russia, Moscow, Russia, ORCID:, e-mail:



Total: 346
Previous month: 14
Current month: 14


Total: 116
Previous month: 16
Current month: 2