Literature DB >> 26304271

Judgment: a cognitive processing perspective.

Thorsten Pachur1, Arndt Bröder2.   

Abstract

Historically, judgment research has been mainly concerned with identifying regularities in sensation (e.g., discriminability laws) and assessing judgment accuracy. More recently, the focus has shifted toward specifying the information processing mechanisms underlying judgment and modeling them, for example, as cognitive strategies. We contrast this strategy approach with previous prominent research programs on judgment and provide an overview of various process-level accounts that have been proposed in terms of computational models (e.g., compensatory and noncompensatory cue-abstraction strategies, evidence accumulation, exemplar processing, and parallel constraint satisfaction). Importantly, empirical investigations show that the cognitive processes underlying judgment differ considerably as a function of the individual's cognitive capacity and characteristics of the task environment (e.g., information cost, cognitive capacity, cue inter-correlations, relationship between cues and the to-be-judged criterion). We argue that these systematic contingencies in strategy use can be understood as adaptive responses to costs in learning, information acquisition, and strategy execution. WIREs Cogn Sci 2013, 4:665-681. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1259 CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have declared no conflicts of interest for this article For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Year:  2013        PMID: 26304271     DOI: 10.1002/wcs.1259

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci        ISSN: 1939-5078


  4 in total

1.  Simultaneous utilization of multiple cues in judgments of learning.

Authors:  Monika Undorf; Anke Söllner; Arndt Bröder
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2018-05

2.  Neural Signatures of Rational and Heuristic Choice Strategies: A Single Trial ERP Analysis.

Authors:  Szymon Wichary; Mikołaj Magnuski; Tomasz Oleksy; Aneta Brzezicka
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2017-08-18       Impact factor: 3.169

3.  From Bayes-optimal to heuristic decision-making in a two-alternative forced choice task with an information-theoretic bounded rationality model.

Authors:  Cecilia Lindig-León; Nehchal Kaur; Daniel A Braun
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-09-29       Impact factor: 5.152

4.  Spelling Errors and Shouting Capitalization Lead to Additive Penalties to Trustworthiness of Online Health Information: Randomized Experiment With Laypersons.

Authors:  Harry J Witchel; Georgina A Thompson; Christopher I Jones; Carina E I Westling; Juan Romero; Alessia Nicotra; Bruno Maag; Hugo D Critchley
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2020-06-10       Impact factor: 5.428

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.