FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1513849725> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1513849725 endingPage "249" @default.
• W1513849725 startingPage "244" @default.
• W1513849725 abstract "Algorithm, Heuristic or Exemplar: Process and Representation in Multiple-Cue Judgment Sari Jones (Sari.Jones@psyk.uu.se) Department of Psychology, Uppsala University Box 1225, SE-751 42, Uppsala, Sweden Peter Juslin (Peter.Juslin@psy.umu.se) Department of Psychology, Umea University SE-901 87, Umea, Sweden Henrik Olsson (Henrik.Olsson@psy.umu.se) Department of Psychology, Umea University SE-901 87, Umea, Sweden Anders Winman (Anders.Winman@psyk.uu.se) Department of Psychology, Uppsala University Box 1225, SE-751 42, Uppsala, Sweden Abstract We present an experimental design that allows us to investi- gate the representations and processes used in human multi- ple-cue judgment. We compare three ideal models of how knowledge is stored and applied in a judgment: A linear addi- tive model (LAM), a heuristic model, Take-the-best (TTB) and a generic exemplar-based model (EBM). The results show that people adaptively change processing depending on what information is present in the learning phase and whether or not the learning situation is compatible with the test. Feed- back on a continuous variable provides information sufficient to estimate a LAM that can be used both when learning is and is not compatible with the test. When only dichotomous feed- back is provided, the processes differ depending on the learning-test compatibility. At high compatibility, the proc- essing is best described by EBM, but at low compatibility heuristic processes such as TTB become more frequent alter- natives to LAM. Introduction In the 1950’s and 60’s two new research paradigms emerged in cognitive science, categorization research (e.g., Shepard, Hovland, & Jenkins, 1961) and research on multiple-cue judgment (e.g., Hammond, 1955). While the former has continued to flourish, the Brunswikian inspired judgment research quietly left the arena in the 80’s, although with a re-emergence in studies on realism of confidence (Gigeren- zer, Kleinbolting, & Hoffrage, 1991; Juslin, 1994). The two paradigms have a lot in common, but there is seldom cross- reference between them (but see Kruschke & Johansen, 1999). A major conclusion from research on multiple-cue judgment is that linear models fit judgment data well (Brehmer, 1994) but in regard to knowledge representation and processes, there has been little research. In the categori- zation literature in contrast, a variety of models with explicit representational and process assumptions have been pro- posed (see Medin, 1989). In this article, we bring the two paradigms together by combining multiple-cue learning with theories and methods from research on categorization. We present an experimen- tal design that allows us to investigate knowledge represen- tations and processes in human judgment. As a point of departure we take research that postulates multiple levels of representation (e.g., exemplars, rules) that compete to con- trol the judgments in a specific task (Ashby et al., 1998; Erickson & Kruschke, 1998; Logan, 1988). The idea is that experience with some domain may lead to co-existing repre- sentations at several levels. A general hypothesis is that the process and representation that dominates at the time of judgment is contingent on an interaction between the learn- ing environment and the judgment task to which the knowl- edge is later applied. We offer some preliminary ideas in regard to the principles that determine this interaction. The crucial questions is: In what circumstances will a particular level of representation dominate the judgments? We compare three ideal models of how knowledge is stored and applied in a multiple-cue judgment task. Linear Additive Models (LAM) suggest that we store information in memory about: (a) the weight or cue validity attached to each cue in the form of a linear coefficient, and (b) an alge- braic rule for the combination of the cues, in this case a linear additive rule (Brehmer, 1994). The process at the time of judgment is cue-integration. Recently, a simpler and more heuristic alternative has been proposed in terms of the Take The Best algorithm (TTB; Gigerenzer & Goldstein, 1996; Gigerenzer, Todd, & ABC Group, 1999). TTB sug- gests that the single most valid cue that is applicable is used and that no information is integrated. The knowledge in memory are cue validities and the process amounts to cue- substitution. Finally, Exemplar-Based Models (EBM) from the categorization literature (e.g., Medin & Schaffer, 1978; Nosofsky & Palmeri, 1997) assert that the memory traces of each encountered object are stored in memory and that judgments are based on the similarity between the new ob- ject and the already stored exemplars. In this case, the repre- sentations are exemplars and the process is similarity-based retrieval from memory." @default.
• W1513849725 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1513849725 creator A5016057473 @default.
• W1513849725 creator A5078091066 @default.
• W1513849725 creator A5081378294 @default.
• W1513849725 creator A5081668011 @default.
• W1513849725 date "2000-01-01" @default.
• W1513849725 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W1513849725 title "Algorithm, heuristic or exemplar: Processes and representation in multiple-cue judgment" @default.
• W1513849725 cites W1965946713 @default.
• W1513849725 cites W1993325457 @default.
• W1513849725 cites W2001513998 @default.
• W1513849725 cites W2009408857 @default.
• W1513849725 cites W2013369031 @default.
• W1513849725 cites W2065103335 @default.
• W1513849725 cites W2073371272 @default.
• W1513849725 cites W2078492619 @default.
• W1513849725 cites W2082636843 @default.
• W1513849725 cites W2086618114 @default.
• W1513849725 cites W2091373513 @default.
• W1513849725 cites W2094583869 @default.
• W1513849725 cites W2095934243 @default.
• W1513849725 cites W2115281393 @default.
• W1513849725 cites W2135088505 @default.
• W1513849725 cites W2150234857 @default.
• W1513849725 cites W2159071801 @default.
• W1513849725 hasPublicationYear "2000" @default.
• W1513849725 type Work @default.
• W1513849725 sameAs 1513849725 @default.
• W1513849725 citedByCount "7" @default.
• W1513849725 countsByYear W15138497252014 @default.
• W1513849725 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1513849725 hasAuthorship W1513849725A5016057473 @default.
• W1513849725 hasAuthorship W1513849725A5078091066 @default.
• W1513849725 hasAuthorship W1513849725A5081378294 @default.
• W1513849725 hasAuthorship W1513849725A5081668011 @default.
• W1513849725 hasConcept C101068787 @default.
• W1513849725 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W1513849725 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1513849725 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W1513849725 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1513849725 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W1513849725 hasConcept C169900460 @default.
• W1513849725 hasConcept C173801870 @default.
• W1513849725 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1513849725 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W1513849725 hasConceptScore W1513849725C101068787 @default.
• W1513849725 hasConceptScore W1513849725C111472728 @default.
• W1513849725 hasConceptScore W1513849725C138885662 @default.
• W1513849725 hasConceptScore W1513849725C154945302 @default.
• W1513849725 hasConceptScore W1513849725C15744967 @default.
• W1513849725 hasConceptScore W1513849725C169760540 @default.
• W1513849725 hasConceptScore W1513849725C169900460 @default.
• W1513849725 hasConceptScore W1513849725C173801870 @default.
• W1513849725 hasConceptScore W1513849725C41008148 @default.
• W1513849725 hasConceptScore W1513849725C77805123 @default.
• W1513849725 hasIssue "22" @default.
• W1513849725 hasLocation W15138497251 @default.
• W1513849725 hasOpenAccess W1513849725 @default.
• W1513849725 hasPrimaryLocation W15138497251 @default.
• W1513849725 hasRelatedWork W1731049107 @default.
• W1513849725 hasRelatedWork W1885631550 @default.
• W1513849725 hasRelatedWork W1975951781 @default.
• W1513849725 hasRelatedWork W1978888341 @default.
• W1513849725 hasRelatedWork W1990198033 @default.
• W1513849725 hasRelatedWork W2013369031 @default.
• W1513849725 hasRelatedWork W2036312497 @default.
• W1513849725 hasRelatedWork W2049178503 @default.
• W1513849725 hasRelatedWork W2082636843 @default.
• W1513849725 hasRelatedWork W2086618114 @default.
• W1513849725 hasRelatedWork W2115281393 @default.
• W1513849725 hasRelatedWork W2140705559 @default.
• W1513849725 hasRelatedWork W2150234857 @default.
• W1513849725 hasRelatedWork W2159071801 @default.
• W1513849725 hasRelatedWork W2163721435 @default.
• W1513849725 hasRelatedWork W2252311694 @default.
• W1513849725 hasRelatedWork W2523634601 @default.
• W1513849725 hasRelatedWork W2617908825 @default.
• W1513849725 hasRelatedWork W2767688719 @default.
• W1513849725 hasRelatedWork W293563305 @default.
• W1513849725 hasVolume "22" @default.
• W1513849725 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1513849725 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1513849725 magId "1513849725" @default.
• W1513849725 workType "article" @default.