Literature DB >> 8785689

Judging event covariation: effects of age and memory demand.

S A Mutter1, R M Pliske.   

Abstract

In this study, we investigated age differences in the accuracy of covariation judgement. Young and older adults were asked to solve covariation problems under low or high memory demand conditions. For each problem, subjects saw a sequential presentation of the event-state combination in a 2 X 2 contingency table. Subjects either kept a running tally of the frequencies of occurrence of each combination and used these tallies to make their covariation judgement for the events (Low Memory Demand), or they recalled the frequencies from memory, and then made their judgement (High Memory Demand). Solution patterns across the problems indicated which of four judgement strategies (i.e., Cell A, A vs B, Sum of Diagonals, or Conditional Probability) the subject preferred. The results showed that older adults were generally less accurate than young adults in judging event covariation. Additional findings suggested that this difference might be due to an age-related decline in memory for the frequency of event combinations and to older adults' use of simpler, less accurate judgement strategies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8785689     DOI: 10.1093/geronb/51b.2.p70

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci        ISSN: 1079-5014            Impact factor:   4.077


  5 in total

1.  The role of age and prior beliefs in contingency judgment.

Authors:  Sharon A Mutter; Laura M Strain; Leslie F Plumlee
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2007-07

2.  Aging and integration of contingency evidence in causal judgment.

Authors:  Sharon A Mutter; Leslie F Plumlee
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2009-12

3.  Aging and retrospective revaluation of causal learning.

Authors:  Sharon A Mutter; Anthony R Atchley; Leslie M Plumlee
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2011-08-15       Impact factor: 3.051

4.  Adapting to an Uncertain World: Cognitive Capacity and Causal Reasoning with Ambiguous Observations.

Authors:  Yiyun Shou; Michael Smithson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-10-15       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Causal illusions in children when the outcome is frequent.

Authors:  María Manuela Moreno-Fernández; Fernando Blanco; Helena Matute
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-09-12       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.