Investigating the effects of problem format and task related experience on evidential reasoning

A. Bisantz, A. Kirlik
{"title":"Investigating the effects of problem format and task related experience on evidential reasoning","authors":"A. Bisantz, A. Kirlik","doi":"10.1109/HUICS.1998.659971","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent studies of human decision-making have criticized traditional decision-making research for using inexperienced participants and \"single-shot\" judgment tasks with no feedback. These studies, based on naturalistic and adaptive approaches, have suggested that the poor performance typically demonstrated by traditional research is due not to failures on the part of the human, but failures of the empirical studies to test performance in representative situations. In particular, some researchers have studied how experience in an uncertain environment, or a task format that is more representative of naturally-occurring environments, can improve performance on evidential reasoning tasks. This paper describes research designed to test the effect of both differing task formats and environmental experience on performance on such tasks. Participants performed an evidential reasoning task in one of two formats, before and after receiving related experience in the task environment. As expected, we found that task-related experience did improve performance; however, the effect of task format was not consistent with earlier research.","PeriodicalId":312878,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings Fourth Annual Symposium on Human Interaction with Complex Systems","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings Fourth Annual Symposium on Human Interaction with Complex Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/HUICS.1998.659971","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Recent studies of human decision-making have criticized traditional decision-making research for using inexperienced participants and "single-shot" judgment tasks with no feedback. These studies, based on naturalistic and adaptive approaches, have suggested that the poor performance typically demonstrated by traditional research is due not to failures on the part of the human, but failures of the empirical studies to test performance in representative situations. In particular, some researchers have studied how experience in an uncertain environment, or a task format that is more representative of naturally-occurring environments, can improve performance on evidential reasoning tasks. This paper describes research designed to test the effect of both differing task formats and environmental experience on performance on such tasks. Participants performed an evidential reasoning task in one of two formats, before and after receiving related experience in the task environment. As expected, we found that task-related experience did improve performance; however, the effect of task format was not consistent with earlier research.
调查问题形式和任务相关经验对证据推理的影响
最近对人类决策的研究批评了传统决策研究使用缺乏经验的参与者和没有反馈的“单次”判断任务。这些基于自然主义和适应性方法的研究表明,传统研究通常表现出的糟糕表现不是由于人类的失败,而是由于在代表性情况下测试表现的实证研究的失败。特别是,一些研究人员已经研究了在不确定环境中的经验,或更能代表自然发生环境的任务格式,如何提高证据推理任务的表现。本文描述了旨在测试不同任务格式和环境经验对此类任务表现的影响的研究。参与者在任务环境中获得相关经验之前和之后,以两种格式之一执行证据推理任务。不出所料,我们发现与任务相关的经验确实能提高表现;然而,任务格式的影响与先前的研究并不一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信