{"title":"EXPRESS: When feedback backfires - Knowledge of results can impair cognitive strategy choice.","authors":"Patrick P Weis, Wilfried Kunde","doi":"10.1177/17470218241282659","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Frequently, problems can be solved in more than one way. In modern computerized environments, more ways than ever exist. Naturally, human problem solvers do not always decide for the best-performing strategy available. One underlying reason might be the inability to continuously and correctly monitor each strategy's performance. Here, we supported some of our participants' monitoring ability by providing written feedback regarding their speed and accuracy. Specifically, participants engaged in an object comparison task, which they were asked to solve with one of two strategies: an internal strategy (mental rotation) or an extended strategy (manual rotation). After receiving no feedback (30 participants), trialwise feedback (30 participants), or blockwise feedback (30 participants) in these no choice trials, all participants were asked to estimate their performance with both strategies and were then allowed to freely choose between strategies in choice trials. Results indicated that written feedback improves explicit performance estimates. However, results also indicated that such increased awareness does not guarantee improved strategy choice and that attending to written feedback might tamper with more adaptive ways inform the choice. Thus, we advise against prematurely implementing written feedback. While it might support adaptive strategy choice in certain environments, it did not in the present setup. We encourage further research that improves the understanding of how we monitor the performance of different cognitive strategies. Such understanding will help create interventions that support human problem solvers in making better choices in the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":20869,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218241282659","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Frequently, problems can be solved in more than one way. In modern computerized environments, more ways than ever exist. Naturally, human problem solvers do not always decide for the best-performing strategy available. One underlying reason might be the inability to continuously and correctly monitor each strategy's performance. Here, we supported some of our participants' monitoring ability by providing written feedback regarding their speed and accuracy. Specifically, participants engaged in an object comparison task, which they were asked to solve with one of two strategies: an internal strategy (mental rotation) or an extended strategy (manual rotation). After receiving no feedback (30 participants), trialwise feedback (30 participants), or blockwise feedback (30 participants) in these no choice trials, all participants were asked to estimate their performance with both strategies and were then allowed to freely choose between strategies in choice trials. Results indicated that written feedback improves explicit performance estimates. However, results also indicated that such increased awareness does not guarantee improved strategy choice and that attending to written feedback might tamper with more adaptive ways inform the choice. Thus, we advise against prematurely implementing written feedback. While it might support adaptive strategy choice in certain environments, it did not in the present setup. We encourage further research that improves the understanding of how we monitor the performance of different cognitive strategies. Such understanding will help create interventions that support human problem solvers in making better choices in the future.
期刊介绍：
Promoting the interests of scientific psychology and its researchers, QJEP, the journal of the Experimental Psychology Society, is a leading journal with a long-standing tradition of publishing cutting-edge research. Several articles have become classic papers in the fields of attention, perception, learning, memory, language, and reasoning. The journal publishes original articles on any topic within the field of experimental psychology (including comparative research). These include substantial experimental reports, review papers, rapid communications (reporting novel techniques or ground breaking results), comments (on articles previously published in QJEP or on issues of general interest to experimental psychologists), and book reviews. Experimental results are welcomed from all relevant techniques, including behavioural testing, brain imaging and computational modelling.
QJEP offers a competitive publication time-scale. Accepted Rapid Communications have priority in the publication cycle and usually appear in print within three months. We aim to publish all accepted (but uncorrected) articles online within seven days. Our Latest Articles page offers immediate publication of articles upon reaching their final form.
The journal offers an open access option called Open Select, enabling authors to meet funder requirements to make their article free to read online for all in perpetuity. Authors also benefit from a broad and diverse subscription base that delivers the journal contents to a world-wide readership. Together these features ensure that the journal offers authors the opportunity to raise the visibility of their work to a global audience.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
