Deliberation’s Blindsight

Hoffmann, Janina A.; Helversen, Bettina von; Rieskamp, Jörg

doi:10.1177/0956797612463581

Cited by 43 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We measured model fit as the RMSD between model predictions and participants' judgments in the training phase and participants' mean judgments in the test phase, respec- 4 We also fitted an exemplar model with four attention parameters to participants' judgments. However, replicating results from previous studies (Hoffmann et al, 2013;von Helversen & Rieskamp, 2008), this model failed to outperform an exemplar model with one parameter in predicting participants' judgments for validation items in either the linear task (RMSD ϭ 5.3) or the multiplicative task (RMSD ϭ 5.9). Note.…”

Section: Modeling Of Judgment Strategiessupporting

confidence: 78%

“…Research suggests that people use both types of strategy, with strategy selection depending on task characteristics (Juslin et al, 2003Karlsson, Juslin, & Olsson, 2007;Platzer & Bröder, 2013;von Helversen, Karlsson, Mata, & Wilke, 2013;von Helversen & Rieskamp, 2009) and individual differences (Mata, von Helversen, Karlsson, & Cüpper, 2012;von Helversen, Mata, & Olsson, 2010): Specifically, when people perform the judgment task over trials and receive feedback about the correct criterion, they rely more on cue abstraction strategies if the criterion is a linear additive function of the cues (in a linear task). However, people shift to exemplar-based strategies in multiplicative tasks where the judgment criterion is a nonlinear function of the cues (Hoffmann, von Helversen, & Rieskamp, 2013;Juslin et al, 2008). This shift presumably takes place because the cue abstraction strategy does not allow accurate judgments in nonlinear environments von Helversen & Rieskamp, 2009).…”

Section: Judgment Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Learning one-dimensional categorization rules, for instance, is impaired by a concurrent verbal task (Filoteo, Lauritzen, & Maddox, 2010;Zeithamova & Maddox, 2006. In a similar vein, cognitive load studies suggest that people abandon cue abstraction strategies more frequently under cognitive load than without load (Hoffmann et al, 2013). Finally, learning a judgment task is easier if the sequence reduces working memory demands by facilitating a direct comparison of cue values and judgment criteria (Helsdingen, Van Gog, & Van Merriënboer, 2011;Juslin et al, 2008).…”

Section: The Influence Of Memory Abilities On Strategy Executionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Judgment research suggests that people prefer rule-based strategies in linear tasks but switch to exemplar-based strategies in multiplicative tasks (Hoffmann et al, 2013;Juslin et al, 2008). Thus, memory abilities should differentially affect performance in linear and multiplicative tasks.…”

Section: Predictions For Judgment Performance and Strategy Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To capture how much participants relied on a cue abstraction or an exemplar-based strategy, we also fitted a strategy weight parameter w, to participants' judgments in the test phase, excluding participants best described by the baseline model (Hoffmann et al, 2013). Using the optimal parameters for the linear and the exemplar model from the training phase, we estimated the strategy weight by minimizing the RMSD between the models' weighted predictions c P and participants' mean judgments in the test phase: (8) Accordingly, the strategy weight weights the predictions of the exemplar model cpExemplar and the linear model cpLinear for the test phase and depends upon only the relative predictive performance of the models.…”

Section: Modeling Of Judgment Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Pillars of judgment: How memory abilities affect performance in rule-based and exemplar-based judgments.

Hoffmann

Helversen

Rieskamp

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Self Cite

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Making accurate judgments is an essential skill in everyday life. Although how different memory abilities relate to categorization and judgment processes has been hotly debated, the question is far from resolved. We contribute to the solution by investigating how individual differences in memory abilities affect judgment performance in 2 tasks that induced rule-based or exemplar-based judgment strategies. In a study with 279 participants, we investigated how working memory and episodic memory affect judgment accuracy and strategy use. As predicted, participants switched strategies between tasks. Furthermore, structural equation modeling showed that the ability to solve rule-based tasks was predicted by working memory, whereas episodic memory predicted judgment accuracy in the exemplar-based task. Last, the probability of choosing an exemplar-based strategy was related to better episodic memory, but strategy selection was unrelated to working memory capacity. In sum, our results suggest that different memory abilities are essential for successfully adopting different judgment strategies.

show abstract

Section: Modeling Of Judgment Strategiessupporting

confidence: 78%

Section: Judgment Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Influence Of Memory Abilities On Strategy Executionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Predictions For Judgment Performance and Strategy Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Modeling Of Judgment Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Pillars of judgment: How memory abilities affect performance in rule-based and exemplar-based judgments.

Hoffmann

Helversen

Rieskamp

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Self Cite

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Probabilistic Inferences Under Emotional Stress: How Arousal Affects Decision Processes

Wichary

Mata

Rieskamp

2015

Behavioral Decision Making

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many models of decision making neglect emotional states that could affect individuals' cognitive processes. The present work explores the effect of emotional stress on people's cognitive processes when making probabilistic inferences. Two contrasting hypotheses are tested against one another: the uncertainty-reduction and attention-narrowing hypotheses of how emotional stress affects decision making. In the experimental study, emotional stress was induced through the use of highly aversive pictures immediately before each decision. Emotional state was assessed by both subjective (state anxiety, arousal, and pleasantness ratings) and objective (skin conductance) measures. The results show that emotional stress impacts decision making; in particular, emotionally aroused participants seem to have focused on the most important information and selected simpler decision strategies relative to participants in a control condition. The results are in line with the attentionnarrowing hypothesis and suggest that emotional stress can impact decision making through limited predecisional information search and the selection of simpler decision strategies.

show abstract

Strategy Selection Versus Strategy Blending: A Predictive Perspective on Single‐ and Multi‐Strategy Accounts in Multiple‐Cue Estimation

Herzog

Helversen

2016

Behavioral Decision Making

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The claim that a person can use different strategies or processes to solve the same task is pervasive in decision making, categorization, estimation, reasoning, and other research fields. Yet such multi-strategy approaches differ widely in how they envision that the different strategies are coordinated and therefore do not represent one unitary approach. Toolbox models, for example, assume that people shift from one strategy to another as they adapt to specific task environments based on past experience. Unlike such multi-strategy selection approaches, multi-strategy blending approaches assume that the outputs of different strategies are blended into a joint, hybrid response (i.e., "wisdom of strategies" in one mind). The goal of this article is twofold. First, we discuss strategy blending as a conceptual alternative to strategy selection for modeling human judgment. Second, we investigate the predictive performance of the different approaches in synthetic and real-world environments. Taking a normative perspective, we study the coordination of rule-based and exemplar-based processes in estimation tasks. Our simulations using synthetic and real-world environments indicate that, for medium-sized samples, multi-strategy blending approaches lead to more accurate estimates than relying on a single strategy or selecting a strategy based on past experience-possibly because neither rule-nor exemplar-based processes in isolation are sufficient to capture statistical regularities that enable accurate estimates. This suggests that multi-strategy blending approaches can be advantageous to the degree that they rely on qualitatively different strategies. We thank Susannah Goss for editing the manuscript, and the Swiss National Science Foundation for a grant to the first author (100014_129572/1) and a grant to the second author (100014_146169).Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Stefan M. Herzog, Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Lentzeallee 94, 14195 Berlin, Germany. E-mail: herzog@mpib-berlin.mpg.de This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions. STRATEGY SELECTION VS. BLENDING 2 AbstractThe claim that a person can use different strategies or processes to solve the same task is pervasive in decision making, categorization, estimation, reasoning, and other research fields. Yet such multi-strategy approaches differ widely in how they envision that the different strategies are coordinated and therefore do not represent one unitary approach. Toolbox models, for example, assume that people shift from one strategy to another as they adapt to specific task environments based on past experience. Unlike such multi-strategy selection approaches, multi-strategy blending approaches assume that the outputs of different strategies are blended into a joint, hybrid response (i.e., "wisdom of strategies" in one mind).The goal of this article is twofold. First, we introduce strat...

show abstract

Deliberation’s Blindsight

Cited by 43 publications

References 41 publications

Pillars of judgment: How memory abilities affect performance in rule-based and exemplar-based judgments.

Pillars of judgment: How memory abilities affect performance in rule-based and exemplar-based judgments.

Probabilistic Inferences Under Emotional Stress: How Arousal Affects Decision Processes

Strategy Selection Versus Strategy Blending: A Predictive Perspective on Single‐ and Multi‐Strategy Accounts in Multiple‐Cue Estimation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About