Dr. Kevin Tiede

Background

Before joining the Chair of Health Communication as a postdoc, Kevin Tiede completed a PhD at the University of Konstanz and worked as a postdoc at the Center for Adaptive Rationality at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development. As a psychologist, Kevin is interested in how humans make decisions under risk and uncertainty. Moreover, Kevin studies how information in the health and climate domains can be communicated to help individuals better understand the information and thus make more informed decisions.

Areas of expertise: decision making under risk and uncertainty, risk communication, climate communication, policy acceptance, numeracy

Curriculum Vitae

Academic career     

• 2017 – 2022          PhD in Psychology, Graduate School of Decision Sciences, University of Konstanz
• 2014 – 2017          MSc in Psychology, University of Koblenz-Landau
• 2011 – 2014          BSc in Psychology, University of Koblenz-Landau

Employment

• 2024 – present     Postdoc, Chair of Health Communication, University of Erfurt
• 2021 – 2024          Postdoctoral Fellow, Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin
• 2019 – 2020          Visiting Researcher, Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin
• 2019 – 2021          PhD Scholarship, German Academic Scholarship Foundation (Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes)
• 2017 – 2018          Doctoral Researcher, Social Psychology and Decision Sciences, University of Konstanz
• 2016 – 2017          Visiting Scholar, Cognitive and Affective Influences in Decision Making Lab, Ohio State University, USA

Publications

• Tiede, K. E., Gaissmaier, W., Pachur, T. (in press). Is there a description–experience gap in choices between a described and an experienced option? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001417
• Tiede, K. E., & Gaissmaier, W. (2023). How do people process different representations of statistical information? Insights about cognitive effort, representational inconsistencies, and individual differences. Medical Decision Making, 43, 803–820. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X231202505
• Gaissmaier, W., Tiede, K. E., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2023). The lure of beauty: People select representations of statistical information based on attractiveness, not comprehensibility. Medical Decision Making, 43, 774–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X231201579
• Bago, B., Kovacs, M., Protzko, J., Nagy, T., Kekecs, Z., Pal_, B., Adamkovic, M., Adamus, S., Adoric, V. C., …, Tiede, K. E., …, & Aczel, B. (2022). Situational factors shape moral judgments in the trolley dilemma in Eastern, Southern, and Western countries in a culturally diverse sample. Nature Human Behaviour, 6, 880–895. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01319-5
• Tiede, K. E., Henninger, F., & Kieslich, P. J. (2022). Revisiting the Open Sampling format: Improving risky choices through a novel graphical representation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29, 648–659. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-02018-4
• Tiede, K. E., Bjälkebring, P., & Peters, E. (2022). Numeracy, numeric attention, and number use in judgment and choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 35, Article e2264. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2264
• Tiede, K. E.*, Schultheis, S. K.*, & Meyer, B. (2021). Subgroup splits in diverse work teams: Subgroup perceptions but not demographic faultlines affect team identification and emotional exhaustion. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 595720. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.595720 *shared first authorship
• Tiede, K. E., Ripke, F., Degen, N., & Gaissmaier, W. (2020). When does the incremental risk format aid informed medical decisions? The role of learning, feedback, and number of treatment options. Medical Decision Making, 40, 212–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X20904357
• Tiede, K. E., & Appel, M. (2020). Reviews, expectations, and the experience of stories. Media Psychology, 23, 365–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2019.1602055
• Peters, E., Fennema, M. G., & Tiede, K. E. (2019). The loss-bet paradox: Actuaries, accountants, and other numerate people rate numerically inferior gambles as superior. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 32, 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2085