{"title":"Cognition.","authors":"C. Agostoni, S. Bettocchi","doi":"10.32388/jul0b9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article compares three psychological mechanisms to make multi-attribute inferences under time pressure in the domains of categorization and similarity judgments. Specifically, we test if people under time pressure attend to fewer object features (attention focus), if they respond less precisely (lower choice sensitivity), or if they simplify a psychological similarity function (simplified similarity). The simpler psychological similarity considers the number of matching features but ignores the actual feature value differences. We conducted three experiments (two of them preregistered) in which we manipulated time pressure: one was a categorization task, which was designed based on optimal experimental design principles, and the other two involved a similarity judgment task. Computational cognitive modeling following an exemplar-similarity framework showed that the behavior of most participants under time pressure is in line with a lower choice sensitivity, this means less precise response selection, especially when people make similarity judgments. We find that the variability of participants’ behavior increases with time pressure, to a point where participants are unlikely to make inferences anymore but instead start choosing readily available response options repeatedly. These findings are consistent with related research in other cognitive domains, such as risky choices, and add to growing evidence that time pressure and other forms of cognitive load do not necessarily alter core cognitive processes themselves but rather affect the precision of response selection.","PeriodicalId":54311,"journal":{"name":"World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics","volume":"125 1","pages":"111-124"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32388/jul0b9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This article compares three psychological mechanisms to make multi-attribute inferences under time pressure in the domains of categorization and similarity judgments. Specifically, we test if people under time pressure attend to fewer object features (attention focus), if they respond less precisely (lower choice sensitivity), or if they simplify a psychological similarity function (simplified similarity). The simpler psychological similarity considers the number of matching features but ignores the actual feature value differences. We conducted three experiments (two of them preregistered) in which we manipulated time pressure: one was a categorization task, which was designed based on optimal experimental design principles, and the other two involved a similarity judgment task. Computational cognitive modeling following an exemplar-similarity framework showed that the behavior of most participants under time pressure is in line with a lower choice sensitivity, this means less precise response selection, especially when people make similarity judgments. We find that the variability of participants’ behavior increases with time pressure, to a point where participants are unlikely to make inferences anymore but instead start choosing readily available response options repeatedly. These findings are consistent with related research in other cognitive domains, such as risky choices, and add to growing evidence that time pressure and other forms of cognitive load do not necessarily alter core cognitive processes themselves but rather affect the precision of response selection.
期刊介绍:
Volumes in this series consist of exceptionally thorough reviews on topics selected as either fundamental to improved understanding of human and animal nutrition, useful in resolving present controversies, or relevant to problems of social and preventive medicine that depend for their solution on progress in nutrition. Many of the individual articles have been judged as among the most comprehensive reviews ever published on the given topic. Since the first volume appeared in 1959, the series has earned repeated praise for the quality of its scholarship and the reputation of its authors.