Learning myopia: An adaptive recency effect in category learning.

Jones, Matt; Sieck, Winston R.

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.29.4.626

Cited by 47 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We assume each forecaster reports the last data point from his private sample. This strategy is consistent with the recency effect whereby people rely on recent experiences in making judgments Yates 2001, Jones andSieck 2003). We call this strategy a report-the-last strategy.…”

Section: Mixed-strategiessupporting

confidence: 51%

The Wisdom of Competitive Crowds

Lichtendahl

Grushka‐Cockayne

Pfeifer

2013

Operations Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When several individuals are asked to forecast an uncertain quantity, they often face implicit or explicit incentives to be the most accurate. Despite the desire to elicit honest forecasts, such competition induces forecasters to report strategically and nontruthfully. The question we address is whether the competitive crowd's forecast (the average of strategic forecasts) is more accurate than the truthful crowd's forecast (the average of truthful forecasts from the same forecasters). We analyze a forecasting competition in which a prize is awarded to the forecaster whose point forecast is closest to the actual outcome. Before reporting a forecast, we assume each forecaster receives two signals: one common and one private. These signals represent the forecasters' past shared and personal experiences relevant for forecasting the uncertain quantity of interest. In a set of equilibrium results, we characterize the nature of the strategic forecasts in this game. As the correlation among the forecasters' private signals increases, the forecasters switch from using a pure to a mixed strategy. In both cases, forecasters exaggerate their private information and thereby make the competitive crowd's forecast more accurate than the truthful crowd's forecast.

show abstract

Section: Mixed-strategiessupporting

confidence: 51%

The Wisdom of Competitive Crowds

Lichtendahl

Grushka‐Cockayne

Pfeifer

2013

Operations Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Data from the preliminary study suggested that participants do not rely on this regularity-discovering and exploiting the regularity would be marked by rarely or never guessing the same category as the correct answer from the previous item. It does remain possible that there is some subtle or implicit learning of sequential structure (see Jones & Sieck, 2003) during the training phase.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison promotes learning and transfer of relational categories.

Kurtz¹,

Boukrina²,

Gentner³

2013

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated the effect of co-presenting training items during supervised classification learning of novel relational categories. Strong evidence exists that comparison induces a structural alignment process that renders common relational structure more salient. We hypothesized that comparisons between exemplars would facilitate learning and transfer of categories that cohere around a common relational property. The effect of comparison was investigated using learning trials that elicited a separate classification response for each item in presentation pairs that could be drawn from the same or different categories. This methodology ensures consideration of both items and invites comparison through an implicit same-different judgment inherent in making the two responses. In a test phase measuring learning and transfer, the comparison group significantly outperformed a control group receiving an equivalent training session of single-item classification learning. Comparison-based learners also outperformed the control group on a test of far transfer, that is, the ability to accurately classify items from a novel domain that was relationally alike, but surface-dissimilar, to the training materials. Theoretical and applied implications of this comparison advantage are discussed.

show abstract

“…As a result, repetition effects from trial n − 1 to trial n must be assessed between proportion-repeated blocks, with prior trial history equated between the two blocks. The analytic procedure based on Jones and Sieck (2003) offered one way to address this issue in Experiment 1, whereas a subtle change to the method was introduced to address this issue in Experiment 2. If differences in PoP as a function of proportion repeated persist, it may be argued that trial-to- trial priming effects are affected by the predictability of trialto-trial contingencies in a context-specific manner.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, an alternative means of controlling prior trial history was suggested to us by a reviewer, which we also opted to carry out. This procedure derives from the work of Jones and Sieck (2003) and, in the context of the present work, involves looking at priming effects in the following way: We computed mean RTs as a function of whether the target on trial n was a repetition or alternation from trial n − 1 and as a function of whether the target on trial n − 1 was a repetition or alternation from trial n − 2. This yields four trial types (repeat-repeat, repeat-switch, switch-repeat, switchswitch), allowing us to average repeat-repeat and switchrepeat trials together to get a measure of a target repetition from trial n − 1 to trial n, with prior history controlled for, and to average repeat-switch and switch-switch trials together to get a measure of a target switch from trial n − 1 to trial n, with prior trial history controlled for, while maintaining large cell sizes.…”

Section: Response Timesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning what to expect: context-specific control over intertrial priming effects in singleton search

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study explored the degree to which repetition effects in color pop-out search from trial n − 1 to trial n are subject to the attentional control settings of the observer. Intertrial priming effects were compared between two contexts that differed in terms of the utility of immediate prior experience for current performance; in one context, the target was likely to repeat, and in the other context, the target was likely to alternate from one trial to the next. Across two experiments, priming of pop-out (PoP) effects (Malkjovic & Nakayama; Memory & Cognition 22:657-672, 1994) were modulated in accord with the probability of target color repetition in a given trial context. Importantly, this modulation persisted when trial history preceding trial n − 1 was controlled for. Furthermore, this control over PoP seems not to derive from explicit strategies and is not an artifact of randomly occurring strings of same-target trials. We argue that priming effects in singleton search from trial n − 1 to trial n are subject to a form of implicit top-down control.

show abstract

Learning myopia: An adaptive recency effect in category learning.

Cited by 47 publications

References 60 publications

The Wisdom of Competitive Crowds

The Wisdom of Competitive Crowds

Comparison promotes learning and transfer of relational categories.

Learning what to expect: context-specific control over intertrial priming effects in singleton search

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About