Prior belief and polarity in multicue learning.

Jonathan St B T Evans, John Clibbens, Anita Harris
{"title":"Prior belief and polarity in multicue learning.","authors":"Jonathan St B T Evans,&nbsp;John Clibbens,&nbsp;Anita Harris","doi":"10.1080/02724980443000133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We report two experiments in which participants are trained using a multicue probability learning (MCPL) task, which attempts to simulate the acquisition of expert judgement by experience in the real world. Participants were asked to predict performance in certain occupations given a profile of personality test results with trial-by-trial outcome feedback. Only some cues were relevant, and the polarity of the cues (positive or negative predictors) was unspecified. In addition, 25% of random noise was added to the feedback to simulate real world uncertainty. The main factor of interest was that the role of prior belief (determined in a separate study of stereotypes) interfered with the learning process. Experiment 1 failed to find any influence of prior belief in the cues that were irrelevant to the criterion being trained. However, in Experiment 2 people learned to use the relevant cues better when their effect conformed with rather than conflicted with prior belief Both experiments showed strong effects of cue polarity, with positive predictors much more easily learned. The results are discussed with reference to the cognitive processes involved in MCPL and closely related tasks.</p>","PeriodicalId":77437,"journal":{"name":"The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology","volume":"58 4","pages":"651-65"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/02724980443000133","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980443000133","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

We report two experiments in which participants are trained using a multicue probability learning (MCPL) task, which attempts to simulate the acquisition of expert judgement by experience in the real world. Participants were asked to predict performance in certain occupations given a profile of personality test results with trial-by-trial outcome feedback. Only some cues were relevant, and the polarity of the cues (positive or negative predictors) was unspecified. In addition, 25% of random noise was added to the feedback to simulate real world uncertainty. The main factor of interest was that the role of prior belief (determined in a separate study of stereotypes) interfered with the learning process. Experiment 1 failed to find any influence of prior belief in the cues that were irrelevant to the criterion being trained. However, in Experiment 2 people learned to use the relevant cues better when their effect conformed with rather than conflicted with prior belief Both experiments showed strong effects of cue polarity, with positive predictors much more easily learned. The results are discussed with reference to the cognitive processes involved in MCPL and closely related tasks.

多元学习中的先验信念与极性。
我们报告了两个实验,其中参与者使用多线索概率学习(MCPL)任务进行训练,该任务试图模拟在现实世界中通过经验获得专家判断。参与者被要求在给定性格测试结果的情况下预测他们在某些职业中的表现,这些结果是逐次反馈的。只有一些线索是相关的,线索的极性(积极或消极的预测因子)是不明确的。此外,在反馈中加入25%的随机噪声来模拟现实世界的不确定性。我们感兴趣的主要因素是,先验信念的作用(在另一项关于刻板印象的研究中确定)干扰了学习过程。实验1没有发现先验信念对与被训练标准无关的线索有任何影响。然而,在实验2中,当他们的影响与先前的信念一致而不是冲突时,人们学会了更好地使用相关线索。两个实验都显示了强烈的线索极性效应,积极的预测因素更容易被学习。并结合MCPL和相关任务的认知过程进行了讨论。
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