在价值测试可能性权衡的情况下,学习时间分配是否基于期望最大化?

IF 2.3 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Hui Xu, Yue Chu, Xiuya Li, Ruoyu Hou, Weihai Tang, Xiping Liu
{"title":"在价值测试可能性权衡的情况下,学习时间分配是否基于期望最大化?","authors":"Hui Xu, Yue Chu, Xiuya Li, Ruoyu Hou, Weihai Tang, Xiping Liu","doi":"10.1007/s00426-025-02141-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When preparing for entrance exams, learners often face limited study time and need to allocate it by making trade-offs among items with varying combinations of scores and test likelihoods. This study explored how learners allocate study time under time constraints by establishing a trade-off situation with three types of items: low score-high test likelihood, high score-low likelihood, and medium score-medium likelihood. The learners needed to allocate study time to the items. Experiment 1 found that participants allocated the most study time to medium score-medium likelihood items rather than to those with the highest scores or likelihood. They also allocated equal time to low score-high likelihood and high score-low likelihood items despite their differing expected scores. It suggests that under short time constraints, learners did not rely solely on expected scores to allocate study time. In actual learning processes, the influence of difficulty cannot be overlooked. Therefore, Experiment 2 examined whether item difficulty affected the allocation strategy. Results indicated that even with varying difficulty levels, learners did not base their decisions entirely on expected scores. To rule out the possibility that the 5-second time constraint was too short to allocate study time based on expected utility, Experiment 3 extended the study time but found that learners still did not allocate time according to expected utility under longer time constraints. It suggests that learners consider both scores and test likelihoods; however, their allocation process is not completely based on the expected scores. These findings contradict the expected utility theory.</p>","PeriodicalId":48184,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung","volume":"89 3","pages":"107"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Was the study time allocation based on expectation-maximization in value-test likelihood tradeoff situation?\",\"authors\":\"Hui Xu, Yue Chu, Xiuya Li, Ruoyu Hou, Weihai Tang, Xiping Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00426-025-02141-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>When preparing for entrance exams, learners often face limited study time and need to allocate it by making trade-offs among items with varying combinations of scores and test likelihoods. This study explored how learners allocate study time under time constraints by establishing a trade-off situation with three types of items: low score-high test likelihood, high score-low likelihood, and medium score-medium likelihood. The learners needed to allocate study time to the items. Experiment 1 found that participants allocated the most study time to medium score-medium likelihood items rather than to those with the highest scores or likelihood. They also allocated equal time to low score-high likelihood and high score-low likelihood items despite their differing expected scores. It suggests that under short time constraints, learners did not rely solely on expected scores to allocate study time. In actual learning processes, the influence of difficulty cannot be overlooked. Therefore, Experiment 2 examined whether item difficulty affected the allocation strategy. Results indicated that even with varying difficulty levels, learners did not base their decisions entirely on expected scores. To rule out the possibility that the 5-second time constraint was too short to allocate study time based on expected utility, Experiment 3 extended the study time but found that learners still did not allocate time according to expected utility under longer time constraints. It suggests that learners consider both scores and test likelihoods; however, their allocation process is not completely based on the expected scores. These findings contradict the expected utility theory.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48184,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung\",\"volume\":\"89 3\",\"pages\":\"107\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-025-02141-0\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-025-02141-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在准备入学考试时,学习者通常面临有限的学习时间,需要通过在不同分数和考试可能性组合的项目之间进行权衡来分配时间。本研究通过建立低分-高似然、高分-低似然、中分-中似然三种项目的权衡情境,探讨学习者在时间限制下如何分配学习时间。学习者需要为这些项目分配学习时间。实验1发现,参与者将最多的学习时间分配给了中等得分-中等可能性的项目,而不是那些得分最高或可能性最高的项目。尽管他们的期望分数不同,但他们也分配了相同的时间给低得分-高可能性和高得分-低可能性项目。这表明,在短时间限制下,学习者并不仅仅依靠预期分数来分配学习时间。在实际的学习过程中,难度的影响是不容忽视的。因此,实验2考察了项目难度对分配策略的影响。结果表明,即使有不同的难度水平,学习者也不会完全根据预期分数做出决定。为了排除5秒的时间限制太短而无法按照期望效用分配学习时间的可能性,实验3延长了学习时间,但发现在更长的时间限制下学习者仍然没有按照期望效用分配时间。它建议学习者同时考虑分数和测试可能性;然而,他们的分配过程并不完全基于预期分数。这些发现与预期效用理论相矛盾。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Was the study time allocation based on expectation-maximization in value-test likelihood tradeoff situation?

When preparing for entrance exams, learners often face limited study time and need to allocate it by making trade-offs among items with varying combinations of scores and test likelihoods. This study explored how learners allocate study time under time constraints by establishing a trade-off situation with three types of items: low score-high test likelihood, high score-low likelihood, and medium score-medium likelihood. The learners needed to allocate study time to the items. Experiment 1 found that participants allocated the most study time to medium score-medium likelihood items rather than to those with the highest scores or likelihood. They also allocated equal time to low score-high likelihood and high score-low likelihood items despite their differing expected scores. It suggests that under short time constraints, learners did not rely solely on expected scores to allocate study time. In actual learning processes, the influence of difficulty cannot be overlooked. Therefore, Experiment 2 examined whether item difficulty affected the allocation strategy. Results indicated that even with varying difficulty levels, learners did not base their decisions entirely on expected scores. To rule out the possibility that the 5-second time constraint was too short to allocate study time based on expected utility, Experiment 3 extended the study time but found that learners still did not allocate time according to expected utility under longer time constraints. It suggests that learners consider both scores and test likelihoods; however, their allocation process is not completely based on the expected scores. These findings contradict the expected utility theory.

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
5.10
自引率
8.70%
发文量
137
期刊介绍: Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung publishes articles that contribute to a basic understanding of human perception, attention, memory, and action. The Journal is devoted to the dissemination of knowledge based on firm experimental ground, but not to particular approaches or schools of thought. Theoretical and historical papers are welcome to the extent that they serve this general purpose; papers of an applied nature are acceptable if they contribute to basic understanding or serve to bridge the often felt gap between basic and applied research in the field covered by the Journal.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信