My research focuses on judgment and decision making, economic psychology, and information processing. This includes research on the affective and cognitive mechanisms underlying prosocial behavior, ownership and risk perception. Current research projects examine emotion regulation and other psychological drivers underlying charitable giving, scope sensitivity in life-saving contexts, the role of psychological ownership in economic decision making, and risk perception in the domains of health and privacy preferences. [Google Scholar Profil]
Dickert, S., Kleber, J., Västfjäll, D., & Slovic, P. (2016). Mental imagery, impact, and affect: A mediation model for charitable giving. Plos ONE, 11:e0148274. [PDF]
Dickert, S., Västfjäll, D., Kleber, J., & Slovic, P. (2015). Scope Insensitivity: The Limits of Intuitive Valuation of Human Lives in Public Policy. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4, 248-255.
Kleber, J., Dickert, S., Peters, E., & Florack, A. (2013). Same numbers, different meanings: How numeracy influences the importance of numbers for pro-social behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 699-705.
Fiedler, S., Glöckner, A., Nicklisch, A., & Dickert, S. (2013). Social Value Orientation and information search in social dilemmas: An eye-tracking analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, 272-284.
Ashby, N., Dickert, S., & Glöckner, A. (2012). Focusing on what you own: Biased information uptake due to ownership. Judgment and Decision Making, 7, 254-267. [PDF]
Dickert, S., Kleber, J., Peters, E. & Slovic, P. (2011). Numeracy as a precursor to pro-social behavior: The impact of numeracy and presentation format on the cognitive mechanisms underlying donation decisions. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 638-650. [PDF]
Dickert, S., Sagara, N., & Slovic, P. (2011). Affective motivations to help others: A two-stage model of donation decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24, 361-376.
Dickert, S., & Slovic, P. (2009). Attentional mechanisms in the generation of sympathy. Judgment and Decision Making, 4, 297-306. [PDF]