Cognitive science has historically been introduced as a multidisciplinary and, sometimes, an interdisciplinary study of the mind. Recent critical views of the field have questioned the foundational core and its multidisciplinary nature by suggesting that psychology has come to dominate cognitive science. As these are actively debated issues, we need further investigations. This study examines the degree of overlap between cognitive science and psychological science by comparing article keywords and departmental affiliations of authors extracted from flagship journals over the past decade (2012-2022). The results reveal that over 50% of published authors stem from psychology departments. The topics of study between the two remain quite similar as well. However, network analyses found fragmentation in terms of the methodological approaches and a considerable focus by the community of cognitive scientists on formal modeling. Based on the topics and socio-institutional analysis, we suggest that cognitive science is largely (cognitive) psychology. Implications for the field of cognitive science and its claims of multidisciplinarity are discussed.

It is a well-known observation that people tend to dislike risky situations that could potentially lead to a loss, a phenomenon that is called loss aversion. This is often explained using valuation bias, i.e., the subjective value of losses is larger than the subjective value of gains of equal magnitude. However, recent studies using the drift-diffusion model have shown that a pre-valuation bias towards rejection is also a primary determinant of loss-averse behavior. It has large contributions to model fits, predicts a key relationship between rejection rates and response times, and explains the most individual heterogeneity in the rejection rates of participants. We analyzed data from three previously published experiments using the drift-diffusion model and found that these findings generalize to them. However, we found that valuation bias plays the most important role in predicting how likely a person is to accept a given gamble. Our findings also showed that a person's loss aversion parameter, $\lambda$, which captures their propensity to avoid losses is closely related to valuation bias. These results combined highlight the importance of valuation bias in understanding people's choice patterns. Finally, using the leaky, competing accumulator model, we show strong mimicking between valuation bias and an attentional bias wherein people pay more attention to losses as compared to gains. This finding suggests that behaviors that seem to arise due to valuation bias may arise due to such an attentional bias.