FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W353264> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W353264 abstract "Does Irrelevant Information Play a Role in Judgment? Boicho Kokinov (bkokinov@nbu.bg) 12 Penka Hristova (phristova@cogs.nbu.bg) 1 Georgi Petkov (gpetkov@cogs.nbu.bg) 1 Central and East European Center for Cognitive Science, Department of Cognitive Science and Psychology, New Bulgarian University, 21 Montevideo Street Sofia 1635, Bulgaria Institute of Mathematics and Informatics, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Acad. G. Bonchev Street, bl.8 Sofia 1113, Bulgaria Abstract This paper presents an unusual prediction made by the DUAL-based model of judgment JUDGEMAP and its verification. The model is shortly presented as well as the simulation data obtained with it. These data predict that people will use the information on an irrelevant dimension when judging another dimension. This prediction is then tested in a psychological experiment and confirmed. Introduction Suppose that you are judging how tall a person is. Do you expect that the color of his or her eyes will play a role in that process? Or suppose you are judging the quantity of oil in the bottle you are buying, do you expect that the font used on its label will have an effect? Finally, suppose you are judging the length of a given line segment. Do you expect that the color of the line will make a difference? Both our intuition and the theories of judgment would answer these questions negatively. Basically they would assume that when judging length we ignore all irrelevant features (including color) and only physical length plays a role. Of course, many other factors, like order of presentation and context, may play a role, but only the length of the lines will take part in the judgment. This paper is challenging this assumption of standard theories of judgment and is trying to answer the above seemingly stupid and self-evident questions and surprisingly to show that all features (including the irrelevant ones) do matter or more precisely they may matter under certain circumstances. Approaches to Judgment There are a number of theories of judgment and a few running models. Most of the theories originate from psychophysics and are mathematical in their nature; they do not describe the process of judgment, but only characterize the end result. Since we are interested in describing the process of judgment we will briefly outline only the main approaches proposed so far in that direction. Judgment as measuring similarity/dissimilarity with a standard. The classical ideal point approach proposed by Coombs (1964, Wedell & Pettibone, 1999) falls into this category. He believes individuals have their “ideal points” and therefore judging a stimulus can be described as comparing it to this standard and measuring the distance toward it. The Adaptation Level Theory (Helson, 1964) falls into the same category, however, here the standard (adaptation level) is changed depending on context. Finally, the Norm Theory (Kahneman & Miller, 1986) follows a similar approach, however, the standard here is called “norm” and what is more important is that this norm is constructed on the spot rather than retrieved from long-term memory. A comparison set is constructed in working memory consisting of known exemplars and its norm is computed. Thus all three theories can be described as relying on comparison of the target stimulus with a standard (Figure 1), but they differ in the degree to which they subscribe to the constructivist approach toward this standard. Comparison Set Target Standard Figure 1. Judgment as comparison with a standard. Judgment as classification task. Within this approach the comparison set is subdivided into subcategories each of them corresponding to a judgment label (or scale element) and the target stimulus is classified within one of these subcategories. The Range-Frequency Theory (Parduci, 1965, 1974) postulates the constraints which should be met by such category subdivision: the range of value variation within all subcategories should be about the same, and the number of examples in all subcategories should be about the same. The Theory of Criterion Setting (Treisman & Williams, 1984, Treisman, 1985) is a process model that explains how dynamically we change the boundaries of the subcategories. Finally, the ANCHOR model (Petrov &" @default.
• W353264 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W353264 creator A5007373432 @default.
• W353264 creator A5032974460 @default.
• W353264 creator A5063488996 @default.
• W353264 date "2004-01-01" @default.
• W353264 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W353264 title "Does Irrelevant Information Play a Role in Judgment" @default.
• W353264 cites W1518348927 @default.
• W353264 cites W1584371777 @default.
• W353264 cites W161479560 @default.
• W353264 cites W1984871604 @default.
• W353264 cites W1985109448 @default.
• W353264 cites W1997824816 @default.
• W353264 cites W2000255081 @default.
• W353264 cites W2033276871 @default.
• W353264 cites W2033442452 @default.
• W353264 cites W2056930330 @default.
• W353264 cites W2064851486 @default.
• W353264 cites W2072371179 @default.
• W353264 cites W2078608115 @default.
• W353264 cites W2107747520 @default.
• W353264 cites W2111048917 @default.
• W353264 cites W2116354392 @default.
• W353264 cites W2132633424 @default.
• W353264 cites W2167629076 @default.
• W353264 cites W23245746 @default.
• W353264 cites W2703151831 @default.
• W353264 cites W3200958767 @default.
• W353264 cites W609151467 @default.
• W353264 cites W80574529 @default.
• W353264 cites W90503926 @default.
• W353264 cites W2334544541 @default.
• W353264 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W353264 type Work @default.
• W353264 sameAs 353264 @default.
• W353264 citedByCount "6" @default.
• W353264 countsByYear W3532642014 @default.
• W353264 countsByYear W3532642022 @default.
• W353264 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W353264 hasAuthorship W353264A5007373432 @default.
• W353264 hasAuthorship W353264A5032974460 @default.
• W353264 hasAuthorship W353264A5063488996 @default.
• W353264 hasConcept C132010649 @default.
• W353264 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W353264 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W353264 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W353264 hasConcept C169900460 @default.
• W353264 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W353264 hasConcept C188147891 @default.
• W353264 hasConcept C202444582 @default.
• W353264 hasConcept C2780343019 @default.
• W353264 hasConcept C33676613 @default.
• W353264 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W353264 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W353264 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W353264 hasConceptScore W353264C132010649 @default.
• W353264 hasConceptScore W353264C138885662 @default.
• W353264 hasConceptScore W353264C15744967 @default.
• W353264 hasConceptScore W353264C169760540 @default.
• W353264 hasConceptScore W353264C169900460 @default.
• W353264 hasConceptScore W353264C180747234 @default.
• W353264 hasConceptScore W353264C188147891 @default.
• W353264 hasConceptScore W353264C202444582 @default.
• W353264 hasConceptScore W353264C2780343019 @default.
• W353264 hasConceptScore W353264C33676613 @default.
• W353264 hasConceptScore W353264C33923547 @default.
• W353264 hasConceptScore W353264C41895202 @default.
• W353264 hasConceptScore W353264C77805123 @default.
• W353264 hasIssue "26" @default.
• W353264 hasLocation W3532641 @default.
• W353264 hasOpenAccess W353264 @default.
• W353264 hasPrimaryLocation W3532641 @default.
• W353264 hasRelatedWork W1969004384 @default.
• W353264 hasRelatedWork W1997824816 @default.
• W353264 hasRelatedWork W2003893411 @default.
• W353264 hasRelatedWork W2025662919 @default.
• W353264 hasRelatedWork W2060555013 @default.
• W353264 hasRelatedWork W2068251364 @default.
• W353264 hasRelatedWork W2073558782 @default.
• W353264 hasRelatedWork W2111048917 @default.
• W353264 hasRelatedWork W2181376457 @default.
• W353264 hasRelatedWork W2252093353 @default.
• W353264 hasRelatedWork W2291536449 @default.
• W353264 hasRelatedWork W23245746 @default.
• W353264 hasRelatedWork W2330975606 @default.
• W353264 hasRelatedWork W2502809788 @default.
• W353264 hasRelatedWork W2788718039 @default.
• W353264 hasRelatedWork W3048833809 @default.
• W353264 hasRelatedWork W326709237 @default.
• W353264 hasRelatedWork W38096899 @default.
• W353264 hasRelatedWork W80574529 @default.
• W353264 hasRelatedWork W2337029972 @default.
• W353264 hasVolume "26" @default.
• W353264 isParatext "false" @default.
• W353264 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W353264 magId "353264" @default.
• W353264 workType "article" @default.