Exemplar-based judgment or direct recall: On a problematic procedure for estimating parameters in exemplar models of quantitative judgment.
Exemplar model
Judgment
Recall
Journal
Psychonomic bulletin & review
ISSN: 1531-5320
Titre abrégé: Psychon Bull Rev
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9502924
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2021
Oct 2021
Historique:
accepted:
05
12
2020
pubmed:
11
6
2021
medline:
16
10
2021
entrez:
10
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Exemplar models are often used in research on multiple-cue judgments to describe the underlying process of participants' responses. In these experiments, participants are repeatedly presented with the same exemplars (e.g., poisonous bugs) and instructed to memorize these exemplars and their corresponding criterion values (e.g., the toxicity of a bug). We propose that there are two possible outcomes when participants judge one of the already learned exemplars in some later block of the experiment. They either have memorized the exemplar and their respective criterion value and are thus able to recall the exact value, or they have not learned the exemplar and thus have to judge its criterion value, as if it was a new stimulus. We argue that psychologically, the judgments of participants in a multiple-cue judgment experiment are a mixture of these two qualitatively distinct cognitive processes: judgment and recall. However, the cognitive modeling procedure usually applied does not make any distinction between these processes and the data generated by them. We investigated potential effects of disregarding the distinction between these two processes on the parameter recovery and the model fit of one exemplar model. We present results of a simulation as well as the reanalysis of five experimental data sets showing that the current combination of experimental design and modeling procedure can bias parameter estimates, impair their validity, and negatively affect the fit and predictive performance of the model. We also present a latent-mixture extension of the original model as a possible solution to these issues.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34109537
doi: 10.3758/s13423-020-01861-1
pii: 10.3758/s13423-020-01861-1
pmc: PMC8500889
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1495-1513Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
J Gen Psychol. 2003 Apr;130(2):149-68
pubmed: 12773018
Cogn Psychol. 2010 May;60(3):158-89
pubmed: 20064637
Mem Cognit. 1999 Jan;27(1):78-93
pubmed: 10087858
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2009 Jan;130(1):25-37
pubmed: 18986638
Dev Psychol. 2012 Jul;48(4):1188-201
pubmed: 22059450
Psychol Sci. 2013 Jun;24(6):869-79
pubmed: 23575598
Dev Psychol. 2010 Jan;46(1):220-9
pubmed: 20053019
Psychon Bull Rev. 2015 Apr;22(2):391-407
pubmed: 25134469
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1995 Jul;21(4):815-36
pubmed: 7673869
Cogn Psychol. 2017 Feb;92:65-86
pubmed: 27907808
Front Hum Neurosci. 2018 Dec 13;12:481
pubmed: 30631267
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1990 Mar;16(2):179-95
pubmed: 2137860
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1984 Jan;10(1):104-14
pubmed: 6242730
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2008 Feb;137(1):73-96
pubmed: 18248130
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2014 Dec;143(6):2242-61
pubmed: 25285427
Cogn Psychol. 2012 Sep;65(2):207-40
pubmed: 22575684
Psychol Rev. 1997 Apr;104(2):266-300
pubmed: 9127583
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2003 Mar;132(1):133-56
pubmed: 12656301
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2009 Jul;35(4):867-89
pubmed: 19586258
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2018 Nov;71(11):2261-2281
pubmed: 30362409
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2020 Jun;46(6):1064-1090
pubmed: 31750721
Cognition. 2008 Jan;106(1):259-98
pubmed: 17376423