Literature DB >> 23750912

Individual differences in learning and transfer: stable tendencies for learning exemplars versus abstracting rules.

Mark A McDaniel1, Michael J Cahill2, Mathew Robbins1, Chelsea Wiener1.   

Abstract

We hypothesize that during training some learners may focus on acquiring the particular exemplars and responses associated with the exemplars (termed exemplar learners), whereas other learners attempt to abstract underlying regularities reflected in the particular exemplars linked to an appropriate response (termed rule learners). Supporting this distinction, after training (on a function-learning task), participants displayed an extrapolation profile reflecting either acquisition of the trained cue-criterion associations (exemplar learners) or abstraction of the function rule (rule learners; Studies 1a and 1b). Further, working memory capacity (measured by operation span [Ospan]) was associated with the tendency to rely on rule versus exemplar processes. Studies 1c and 2 examined the persistence of these learning tendencies on several categorization tasks. Study 1c showed that rule learners were more likely than exemplar learners (indexed a priori by extrapolation profiles) to resist using idiosyncratic features (exemplar similarity) in generalization (transfer) of the trained category. Study 2 showed that the rule learners but not the exemplar learners performed well on a novel categorization task (transfer) after training on an abstract coherent category. These patterns suggest that in complex conceptual tasks, (a) individuals tend to either focus on exemplars during learning or on extracting some abstraction of the concept, (b) this tendency might be a relatively stable characteristic of the individual, and (c) transfer patterns are determined by that tendency.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23750912      PMCID: PMC3890377          DOI: 10.1037/a0032963

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen        ISSN: 0022-1015


  43 in total

1.  The reliability and stability of the Turner and Engle working memory task.

Authors:  K Klein; W H Fiss
Journal:  Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput       Date:  1999-08

2.  The conceptual basis of function learning and extrapolation: comparison of rule-based and associative-based models.

Authors:  Mark A McDaniel; Jerome R Busemeyer
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2005-02

3.  Inference and classification learning of abstract coherent categories.

Authors:  Jane E Erickson; Seth Chin-Parker; Brian H Ross
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.051

4.  An automated version of the operation span task.

Authors:  Nash Unsworth; Richard P Heitz; Josef C Schrock; Randall W Engle
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2005-08

5.  Predicting transfer performance: a comparison of competing function learning models.

Authors:  Mark A McDaniel; Eric Dimperio; Jacqueline A Griego; Jerome R Busemeyer
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 3.051

6.  Executive attention and task switching in category learning: evidence for stimulus-dependent representation.

Authors:  Michael A Erickson
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2008-06

7.  The relationship between working memory capacity and executive functioning: evidence for a common executive attention construct.

Authors:  David P McCabe; Henry L Roediger; Mark A McDaniel; David A Balota; David Z Hambrick
Journal:  Neuropsychology       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 3.295

Review 8.  Human category learning.

Authors:  F Gregory Ashby; W Todd Maddox
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 24.137

9.  Learning rule-described and non-rule-described categories: a comparison of children and adults.

Authors:  John Paul Minda; Amy S Desroches; Barbara A Church
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 3.051

10.  The English Lexicon Project.

Authors:  David A Balota; Melvin J Yap; Michael J Cortese; Keith A Hutchison; Brett Kessler; Bjorn Loftis; James H Neely; Douglas L Nelson; Greg B Simpson; Rebecca Treiman
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2007-08
View more
  13 in total

1.  Testing analogical rule transfer in pigeons (Columba livia).

Authors:  Muhammad A J Qadri; F Gregory Ashby; J David Smith; Robert G Cook
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2018-11-30

2.  Individual differences in relational reasoning.

Authors:  Maureen E Gray; Keith J Holyoak
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2020-01

3.  When high working memory capacity is and is not beneficial for predicting nonlinear processes.

Authors:  Helen Fischer; Daniel V Holt
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2017-04

4.  Rule abstraction, model-based choice, and cognitive reflection.

Authors:  Hilary J Don; Micah B Goldwater; A Ross Otto; Evan J Livesey
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-10

5.  A neural interpretation of exemplar theory.

Authors:  F Gregory Ashby; Luke Rosedahl
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2017-04-06       Impact factor: 8.934

6.  Category learning strategies in younger and older adults: Rule abstraction and memorization.

Authors:  Christopher N Wahlheim; Mark A McDaniel; Jeri L Little
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2016-03-07

7.  Individual differences in category learning: memorization versus rule abstraction.

Authors:  Jeri L Little; Mark A McDaniel
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2015-02

8.  Training principles to advance expertise.

Authors:  Alice F Healy; James A Kole; Lyle E Bourne
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-02-19

9.  Individual Difference Factors in the Learning and Transfer of Patterning Discriminations.

Authors:  Elisa Maes; Elias Vanderoost; Rudi D'Hooge; Jan De Houwer; Tom Beckers
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-07-28

10.  Finding formulas: Does active search facilitate appropriate generalization?

Authors:  Nicole R Hallinen; Lauren N Sprague; Kristen P Blair; Rebecca M Adler; Nora S Newcombe
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2021-07-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.