快讯:当反馈起反作用时--对结果的了解会影响认知策略的选择。

IF 1.5 3区 心理学 Q4 PHYSIOLOGY
Patrick P Weis, Wilfried Kunde
{"title":"快讯:当反馈起反作用时--对结果的了解会影响认知策略的选择。","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 computerised 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":" ","pages":"17470218241282659"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"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 computerised 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\":\" \",\"pages\":\"17470218241282659\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-06\",\"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}","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

摘要

解决问题的方法往往不止一种。在现代计算机环境中,解决问题的方法比以往任何时候都多。当然,人类的问题解决者并不总是选择性能最好的策略。其中一个根本原因可能是无法持续、正确地监控每种策略的性能。在这里,我们通过对参与者的速度和准确性提供书面反馈来帮助他们提高监控能力。具体来说,参与者参与了一项物体比较任务,要求他们使用两种策略中的一种:内部策略(心理旋转)或扩展策略(手动旋转)。在这些无选择试验中,所有参与者在接受了无反馈(30 人)、试验反馈(30 人)或顺时针反馈(30 人)后,被要求估算他们使用两种策略的成绩,然后允许他们在选择试验中自由选择策略。结果表明,书面反馈提高了明确的成绩估计。然而,结果也表明,这种意识的提高并不能保证策略选择的改善,而且关注书面反馈可能会干扰更多的适应性选择方式。因此,我们建议不要过早实施书面反馈。虽然在某些环境下,书面反馈可能会支持自适应策略选择,但在目前的设置中,书面反馈并不支持自适应策略选择。我们鼓励进一步开展研究,加深对我们如何监控不同认知策略表现的理解。这种理解将有助于制定干预措施,支持人类问题解决者在未来做出更好的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
When feedback backfires: Knowledge of results can impair cognitive strategy choice.

Frequently, problems can be solved in more than one way. In modern computerised 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
178
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
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.
×
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