优化问题解决中的个体差异:调和冲突的结果

E. Chronicle, J. MacGregor, M. Lee, T. Ormerod, Peter Hughes
{"title":"优化问题解决中的个体差异:调和冲突的结果","authors":"E. Chronicle, J. MacGregor, M. Lee, T. Ormerod, Peter Hughes","doi":"10.7771/1932-6246.1030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Results on human performance on the Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP) from different laboratories show high consistency. However, one exception is in the area of individual differences. While one research group has consistently failed to fi nd systematic individual differences across instances of TSPs (Chronicle, MacGregor and Ormerod), another group (Vickers, Lee and associates) has found individual differences both within TSP performance and between TSP performance and other cognitive tasks. Among possible reasons for the confl icting results are differences in procedure and differences in the problem in- stances used. To try to resolve the discrepancy, we collected data on TSP performance by combining the procedure used by one group with problem instances used by the other. The comparison involved nine 30-node and nine 40-node TSP problems previously used by the Vickers group, using computer presentation. Here, we had the same problems completed by 112 participants using a paper-and-pencil mode of presentation. We ex- amined the results in the form of distributions of correlations across individuals for each pair of problems of the same size. The distributions for the computer and paper forms of presentation were very similar, and centered between correlations of 0.20 and 0.30. The results indicated the presence of individual differences at a level that fell between those previously reported by the two laboratories. The pattern of results indicated that previ- ous discrepancies did not arise because of differences in procedure. Instead, individual differences appeared to become more prevalent as the diffi culty of problems increased. The results are consistent with an explanation that performance on simpler instances is","PeriodicalId":90070,"journal":{"name":"The journal of problem solving","volume":"113 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Individual Differences in Optimization Problem Solving: Reconciling Conflicting Results\",\"authors\":\"E. Chronicle, J. MacGregor, M. Lee, T. Ormerod, Peter Hughes\",\"doi\":\"10.7771/1932-6246.1030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Results on human performance on the Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP) from different laboratories show high consistency. However, one exception is in the area of individual differences. While one research group has consistently failed to fi nd systematic individual differences across instances of TSPs (Chronicle, MacGregor and Ormerod), another group (Vickers, Lee and associates) has found individual differences both within TSP performance and between TSP performance and other cognitive tasks. Among possible reasons for the confl icting results are differences in procedure and differences in the problem in- stances used. To try to resolve the discrepancy, we collected data on TSP performance by combining the procedure used by one group with problem instances used by the other. The comparison involved nine 30-node and nine 40-node TSP problems previously used by the Vickers group, using computer presentation. Here, we had the same problems completed by 112 participants using a paper-and-pencil mode of presentation. We ex- amined the results in the form of distributions of correlations across individuals for each pair of problems of the same size. The distributions for the computer and paper forms of presentation were very similar, and centered between correlations of 0.20 and 0.30. The results indicated the presence of individual differences at a level that fell between those previously reported by the two laboratories. The pattern of results indicated that previ- ous discrepancies did not arise because of differences in procedure. Instead, individual differences appeared to become more prevalent as the diffi culty of problems increased. The results are consistent with an explanation that performance on simpler instances is\",\"PeriodicalId\":90070,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The journal of problem solving\",\"volume\":\"113 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-07-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The journal of problem solving\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1030\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of problem solving","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1030","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

不同实验室对人类在旅行推销员问题(TSP)上的表现结果显示出高度的一致性。然而,在个体差异方面有一个例外。虽然一个研究小组一直未能找到TSP实例之间的系统性个体差异(Chronicle、MacGregor和Ormerod),但另一个研究小组(Vickers、Lee和同事)发现了TSP表现内部以及TSP表现与其他认知任务之间的个体差异。导致结果冲突的可能原因包括程序的不同和所使用的问题情境的不同。为了解决这种差异,我们通过将一组使用的过程与另一组使用的问题实例相结合来收集有关TSP性能的数据。比较涉及维克斯小组以前使用的9个30节点和9个40节点的TSP问题,使用计算机表示。在这里,我们让112名参与者用纸笔的方式完成同样的问题。我们以相同大小的每对问题的个体间相关性分布的形式检验了结果。计算机形式的报告和纸质形式的报告的分布非常相似,并以0.20和0.30的相关性为中心。结果表明,个体差异的存在程度介于两个实验室之前报告的水平之间。结果的模式表明,以前的差异并不是由于程序的不同而产生的。相反,随着问题难度的增加,个体差异似乎变得更加普遍。结果与一个解释一致,即在更简单的实例上的性能是
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Individual Differences in Optimization Problem Solving: Reconciling Conflicting Results
Results on human performance on the Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP) from different laboratories show high consistency. However, one exception is in the area of individual differences. While one research group has consistently failed to fi nd systematic individual differences across instances of TSPs (Chronicle, MacGregor and Ormerod), another group (Vickers, Lee and associates) has found individual differences both within TSP performance and between TSP performance and other cognitive tasks. Among possible reasons for the confl icting results are differences in procedure and differences in the problem in- stances used. To try to resolve the discrepancy, we collected data on TSP performance by combining the procedure used by one group with problem instances used by the other. The comparison involved nine 30-node and nine 40-node TSP problems previously used by the Vickers group, using computer presentation. Here, we had the same problems completed by 112 participants using a paper-and-pencil mode of presentation. We ex- amined the results in the form of distributions of correlations across individuals for each pair of problems of the same size. The distributions for the computer and paper forms of presentation were very similar, and centered between correlations of 0.20 and 0.30. The results indicated the presence of individual differences at a level that fell between those previously reported by the two laboratories. The pattern of results indicated that previ- ous discrepancies did not arise because of differences in procedure. Instead, individual differences appeared to become more prevalent as the diffi culty of problems increased. The results are consistent with an explanation that performance on simpler instances is
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
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信