umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Exemplar effects in categorization and multiple-cue judgment.
Umeå University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
2003 (English)In: Journal of experimental psychology. General, ISSN 0096-3445, Vol. 1, no 132, 133-156 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2003. Vol. 1, no 132, 133-156 p.
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-3948DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.132.1.133OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-3948DiVA: diva2:142865
Available from: 2004-05-06 Created: 2004-05-06 Last updated: 2009-06-10Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Process and representation in multiple-cue judgment
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Process and representation in multiple-cue judgment
2002 (English)Licentiate thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

This thesis investigates the cognitive processes and representations underlying human judgment in a multiple-cue judgment task. Several recent models assume that people have several qualitatively distinct and competing levels of knowledge representations (Ashby, Alfonso-Reese, Turken, & Waldron, 1998; Erickson & Kruschke, 1998; Nosofsky, Palmeri, & McKinley, 1994; Sloman, 1996). The most successful cognitive models in categorization and multiple-cue judgment are, respectively, exemplar-based models and rule-based models. Study 1 investigated if the different theoretical conclusions in categorization and multiple-cue judgment derive from genuine differences in the processes, or are accidental to the different research methods. The results revealed large individual differences and a shift from exemplar memory to cue abstraction when the criterion is changed from a binary to a continuous variable, and especially for a probabilistic criterion. People appear to switch between qualitatively distinct processes in the two tasks. In Study 2, we expected learning in dyads to promote explicit rule-based thinking as a consequence of verbalization (social abstraction effect) and performance to improve due to the larger joint exemplar knowledge base (exemplar pooling effect). Study 2 suggests that dyads perform better, making more accurate judgments than participants working alone, but we failed to detect any difference in the representation of knowledge. When working in dyads, we can store more exemplars in memory together that leads to more efficient exploitation of memory and exemplar retrieval dominates the judgments. In contrast to earlier research, dyads surpassed the combined base-line level defined by the aggregated performance by members of the dyad working alone. Taken together, the results of these studies indicate that the differences that characterize typical categorization and multiple- cue judgment tasks are conducive of qualitatively different cognitive processes.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Umeå: Psykologi, 2002. 25 p.
Series
Umeå Psychology Supplement Reports, ISSN 1653-7688 ; 1
National Category
Psychology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-1925 (URN)
Presentation
2002-11-29, BT 102, Beteendevetarhuset, Umeå universitet, Umeå, 13:00 (English)
Supervisors
Available from: 2008-11-20 Created: 2008-11-20 Last updated: 2009-06-10Bibliographically approved
2. Factors Shaping Process and Representation in Multiple-Cue Judgment
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Factors Shaping Process and Representation in Multiple-Cue Judgment
2004 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

This thesis investigates the cognitive processes and representations underlying human judgment in a multiple-cue judgment task. Several recent models as-sume that people have several qualitatively distinct and competing levels of knowledge representations (Ashby, Alfonso-Reese, Turken, & Waldron, 1998; Erickson & Kruschke, 1998; Nosofsky, Palmeri, & McKinley, 1994; Sloman, 1996). The most successful cognitive models in categorization and multiple-cue judgment are, respectively, exemplar-based models and cue abstraction models. The models are different in the computations and processes implied, but the structure of the task is similar. Study 1 investigated if the different theoretical conclusions in categorization and multiple-cue judgment derive from genuine differences in the processes, or are accidental to the different research methods. In Study 2, we expected learning in dyads to promote explicit cue abstraction as a consequence of verbalization (a social abstraction effect) and performance to improve due to the larger joint exemplar knowledge base (an exemplar pooling effect). In Study 3 we used the generalized model Sigma to illustrate how change in task environments (linear vs. nonlinear) can shape the knowledge representation that is used. We expected that people are not able to use cue ab-straction when judging objects with a non-linear structure between the visual cues (features) of the objects and the criterion, and therefore they are forced to use exemplar-based processes. Taken together, the results of these studies indicate that differences that characterize typical categorization and multiple-cue judgment tasks are conducive of qualitatively different cognitive processes, and that the task environment plays an important role for which cognitive processes are used in multiple cue judgments.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Umeå: Institutionen för Psykologi, 2004. 47 p.
Keyword
Psychology, Multiple-Cue Judgment, categorization, cognitive processes, knowl-edge representations, exemplar-based models, cue abstraction models, Psykologi
National Category
Psychology
Research subject
Psychology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-264 (URN)91-7305-673-1 (ISBN)
Distributor:
Psykologi, 90187, Umeå
Public defence
2004-05-28, bt102, Beteendevetarhuset, Umeå universitet, Inst. för Psykologi, SE-90187, umeå, 10:00 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Available from: 2004-05-06 Created: 2004-05-06 Last updated: 2009-08-11Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full texthttp://content.apa.org/journals/xge/132/1/133

Authority records BETA

Olsson, Anna-Carin

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Olsson, Anna-Carin
By organisation
Department of Psychology
In the same journal
Journal of experimental psychology. General

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 121 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf