| Literature DB >> 14622069 |
Anders Winman1, Pia Wennerholm, Peter Juslin.
Abstract
In J. K. Kruschke's (2001; see record 2001-18940-005) study, it is argued that attentional theory is the sole satisfactory explanation of the inverse base rate effect and that eliminative inference (P. Juslin, P. Wennerholm, & A. Winman, 2001; see record 2001-07828-016) plays no role in the phenomenon. In this comment, the authors demonstrate that, in contrast to the central tenets of attentional theory, (a) rapid attention shifts as implemented in ADIT decelerate learning in the inverse base-rate task and (b) the claim that the inverse base-rate effect is directly caused by an attentional asymmetry is refuted by data. It is proposed that a complete account of the inverse base-rate effect needs to integrate attention effects with inference rules that are flexibly used for both induction and elimination. ((c) 2003 APA, all rights reserved)Mesh:
Year: 2003 PMID: 14622069 DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.29.6.1390
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn ISSN: 0278-7393 Impact factor: 3.051