Dual-processes in learning and judgment: Evidence from the multiple cue probability learning paradigm
Multiple cue probability learning (MCPL) involves learning to predict a criterion based on a set of novel cues when feedback is provided in response to each judgment made. But to what extent does MCPL require controlled attention and explicit hypothesis testing? The results of two experiments show that this depends on cue polarity. Learning about cues that predict positively is aided by automatic cognitive processes, whereas learning about cues that predict negatively is especially demanding on controlled attention and hypothesis testing processes. In the studies reported here, negative, but not positive cue learning related to individual differences in working memory capacity both on measures of overall judgment performance and modelling of the implicit learning process. However, the introduction of a novel method to monitor participants’ explicit beliefs about a set of cues on a trial-by-trial basis revealed that participants were engaged in explicit hypothesis testing about positive and negative cues, and explicit beliefs about both types of cues were linked to working memory capacity. Taken together, our results indicate that while people are engaged in explicit hypothesis testing during cue learning, explicit beliefs are applied to judgment only when cues are negative.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 118 (2012)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Hugh Kelley & Daniel Friedman, 2002. "Learning to Forecast Price," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 40(4), pages 556-573, October.
- Balzer, William K. & Sulsky, Lorne M. & Hammer, Leslie B. & Sumner, Kenneth E., 1992. "Task information, cognitive information, or functional validity information: Which components of cognitive feedback affect performance?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 35-54, October.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:118:y:2012:i:2:p:189-202. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.