Generating and Evaluating Options for Decision Making: The Impact of Sequentially Presented Evidence
We examined how decision makers generate and evaluate hypotheses when data are presented sequentially. In the first 2 experiments, participants learned the relationship between data and possible causes of the data in a virtual environment. Data were then presented iteratively, and participants eithe...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition memory, and cognition, 2012-05, Vol.38 (3), p.550-575 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 575 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 550 |
| container_title | Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition |
| container_volume | 38 |
| creator | Sprenger, Amber Dougherty, Michael R |
| description | We examined how decision makers generate and evaluate hypotheses when data are presented sequentially. In the first 2 experiments, participants learned the relationship between data and possible causes of the data in a virtual environment. Data were then presented iteratively, and participants either generated hypotheses they thought caused the data or rated the probability of possible causes of the data. In a 3rd experiment, participants generated hypotheses and made probability judgments on the basis of previously stored general knowledge. Findings suggest that both the hypotheses one generates and the judged probability of those hypotheses are heavily influenced by the most recent evidence observed and by the diagnosticity of the evidence. Specifically, participants generated a narrow set of possible explanations when the presented evidence was diagnostic compared with when it was nondiagnostic, suggesting that nondiagnostic evidence entices participants to cast a wider net when generating hypotheses. (Contains 15 figures, 3 tables and 17 footnotes.) |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1037/a0026036 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1010638414</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ991421</ericid><sourcerecordid>904195315</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c389t-ecf3e8b6fabef057be253f0871411cacd1022027b015d8df4ddf3eac288905ba3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kd1rFDEUxYNY7FoL_gFSglLoy2g-JjOJb1K3H1Kp0Po83Elu7NTZzJrMCP3vm2G3LRSal3C4v5x7yCHkPWefOZP1F2BMVExWr8iCG2kKLrR6TRZM1LqopZG75G1Kt2w-Ur8hu0IwLYSUC-JOMWCEsQt_KARHl_-hnzbycj12Q0jUD5F-R9ulrOhP-JtnX-n1DdLz1RrsSAdPr_DfhGHsoO_v6K-IKQuczTqHweI7suOhT7i_vffI75Pl9fFZcXF5en787aKwUpuxQOsl6rby0KJnqm5RKOmZrnnJuQXrOMvBRd0yrpx2vnQuPwArtDZMtSD3yNHGdx2HHCiNzapLFvseAg5TajjjrJK65GVGPz5Db4cphpyuMazkRkmuMvTpJWi2qkspVfm01cYhpYi-WcduBfEuQ81cT_NQT0YPtoZTu0L3CD70kYHDLQDJQu8jhPzxT5zSolJ6TvZhw2Hs7ON4-cMYXgou7wG6Dp6W</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>904195315</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Generating and Evaluating Options for Decision Making: The Impact of Sequentially Presented Evidence</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES</source><creator>Sprenger, Amber ; Dougherty, Michael R</creator><creatorcontrib>Sprenger, Amber ; Dougherty, Michael R</creatorcontrib><description>We examined how decision makers generate and evaluate hypotheses when data are presented sequentially. In the first 2 experiments, participants learned the relationship between data and possible causes of the data in a virtual environment. Data were then presented iteratively, and participants either generated hypotheses they thought caused the data or rated the probability of possible causes of the data. In a 3rd experiment, participants generated hypotheses and made probability judgments on the basis of previously stored general knowledge. Findings suggest that both the hypotheses one generates and the judged probability of those hypotheses are heavily influenced by the most recent evidence observed and by the diagnosticity of the evidence. Specifically, participants generated a narrow set of possible explanations when the presented evidence was diagnostic compared with when it was nondiagnostic, suggesting that nondiagnostic evidence entices participants to cast a wider net when generating hypotheses. (Contains 15 figures, 3 tables and 17 footnotes.)</description><identifier>ISSN: 0278-7393</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-1285</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/a0026036</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22082233</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington, DC: American Psychological Association</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Cognition & reasoning ; Cognition. Intelligence ; Cues ; Decision Making ; Decision Making - physiology ; Decision making. Choice ; Evaluative Thinking ; Evidence ; Experimental psychology ; Female ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Human ; Humans ; Information processing ; Judgment ; Male ; Maryland ; Memory, Episodic ; Models, Psychological ; Neuropsychological Tests ; Probability ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychology. Psychophysiology ; Sequential Approach ; Serial Learning - physiology ; Students ; Undergraduate Students ; Universities</subject><ispartof>Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 2012-05, Vol.38 (3), p.550-575</ispartof><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>(c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright American Psychological Association May 2012</rights><rights>2011, American Psychological Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c389t-ecf3e8b6fabef057be253f0871411cacd1022027b015d8df4ddf3eac288905ba3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ991421$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=25826585$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22082233$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sprenger, Amber</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dougherty, Michael R</creatorcontrib><title>Generating and Evaluating Options for Decision Making: The Impact of Sequentially Presented Evidence</title><title>Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition</title><addtitle>J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn</addtitle><description>We examined how decision makers generate and evaluate hypotheses when data are presented sequentially. In the first 2 experiments, participants learned the relationship between data and possible causes of the data in a virtual environment. Data were then presented iteratively, and participants either generated hypotheses they thought caused the data or rated the probability of possible causes of the data. In a 3rd experiment, participants generated hypotheses and made probability judgments on the basis of previously stored general knowledge. Findings suggest that both the hypotheses one generates and the judged probability of those hypotheses are heavily influenced by the most recent evidence observed and by the diagnosticity of the evidence. Specifically, participants generated a narrow set of possible explanations when the presented evidence was diagnostic compared with when it was nondiagnostic, suggesting that nondiagnostic evidence entices participants to cast a wider net when generating hypotheses. (Contains 15 figures, 3 tables and 17 footnotes.)</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cognition & reasoning</subject><subject>Cognition. Intelligence</subject><subject>Cues</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>Decision Making - physiology</subject><subject>Decision making. Choice</subject><subject>Evaluative Thinking</subject><subject>Evidence</subject><subject>Experimental psychology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Information processing</subject><subject>Judgment</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Maryland</subject><subject>Memory, Episodic</subject><subject>Models, Psychological</subject><subject>Neuropsychological Tests</subject><subject>Probability</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychophysiology</subject><subject>Sequential Approach</subject><subject>Serial Learning - physiology</subject><subject>Students</subject><subject>Undergraduate Students</subject><subject>Universities</subject><issn>0278-7393</issn><issn>1939-1285</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kd1rFDEUxYNY7FoL_gFSglLoy2g-JjOJb1K3H1Kp0Po83Elu7NTZzJrMCP3vm2G3LRSal3C4v5x7yCHkPWefOZP1F2BMVExWr8iCG2kKLrR6TRZM1LqopZG75G1Kt2w-Ur8hu0IwLYSUC-JOMWCEsQt_KARHl_-hnzbycj12Q0jUD5F-R9ulrOhP-JtnX-n1DdLz1RrsSAdPr_DfhGHsoO_v6K-IKQuczTqHweI7suOhT7i_vffI75Pl9fFZcXF5en787aKwUpuxQOsl6rby0KJnqm5RKOmZrnnJuQXrOMvBRd0yrpx2vnQuPwArtDZMtSD3yNHGdx2HHCiNzapLFvseAg5TajjjrJK65GVGPz5Db4cphpyuMazkRkmuMvTpJWi2qkspVfm01cYhpYi-WcduBfEuQ81cT_NQT0YPtoZTu0L3CD70kYHDLQDJQu8jhPzxT5zSolJ6TvZhw2Hs7ON4-cMYXgou7wG6Dp6W</recordid><startdate>20120501</startdate><enddate>20120501</enddate><creator>Sprenger, Amber</creator><creator>Dougherty, Michael R</creator><general>American Psychological Association</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120501</creationdate><title>Generating and Evaluating Options for Decision Making: The Impact of Sequentially Presented Evidence</title><author>Sprenger, Amber ; Dougherty, Michael R</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c389t-ecf3e8b6fabef057be253f0871411cacd1022027b015d8df4ddf3eac288905ba3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cognition & reasoning</topic><topic>Cognition. Intelligence</topic><topic>Cues</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>Decision Making - physiology</topic><topic>Decision making. Choice</topic><topic>Evaluative Thinking</topic><topic>Evidence</topic><topic>Experimental psychology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Information processing</topic><topic>Judgment</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Maryland</topic><topic>Memory, Episodic</topic><topic>Models, Psychological</topic><topic>Neuropsychological Tests</topic><topic>Probability</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychophysiology</topic><topic>Sequential Approach</topic><topic>Serial Learning - physiology</topic><topic>Students</topic><topic>Undergraduate Students</topic><topic>Universities</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sprenger, Amber</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dougherty, Michael R</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>APA PsycArticles®</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sprenger, Amber</au><au>Dougherty, Michael R</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ991421</ericid><atitle>Generating and Evaluating Options for Decision Making: The Impact of Sequentially Presented Evidence</atitle><jtitle>Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition</jtitle><addtitle>J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn</addtitle><date>2012-05-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>550</spage><epage>575</epage><pages>550-575</pages><issn>0278-7393</issn><eissn>1939-1285</eissn><abstract>We examined how decision makers generate and evaluate hypotheses when data are presented sequentially. In the first 2 experiments, participants learned the relationship between data and possible causes of the data in a virtual environment. Data were then presented iteratively, and participants either generated hypotheses they thought caused the data or rated the probability of possible causes of the data. In a 3rd experiment, participants generated hypotheses and made probability judgments on the basis of previously stored general knowledge. Findings suggest that both the hypotheses one generates and the judged probability of those hypotheses are heavily influenced by the most recent evidence observed and by the diagnosticity of the evidence. Specifically, participants generated a narrow set of possible explanations when the presented evidence was diagnostic compared with when it was nondiagnostic, suggesting that nondiagnostic evidence entices participants to cast a wider net when generating hypotheses. (Contains 15 figures, 3 tables and 17 footnotes.)</abstract><cop>Washington, DC</cop><pub>American Psychological Association</pub><pmid>22082233</pmid><doi>10.1037/a0026036</doi><tpages>26</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0278-7393 |
| ispartof | Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 2012-05, Vol.38 (3), p.550-575 |
| issn | 0278-7393 1939-1285 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1010638414 |
| source | MEDLINE; EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES |
| subjects | Biological and medical sciences Cognition & reasoning Cognition. Intelligence Cues Decision Making Decision Making - physiology Decision making. Choice Evaluative Thinking Evidence Experimental psychology Female Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Human Humans Information processing Judgment Male Maryland Memory, Episodic Models, Psychological Neuropsychological Tests Probability Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry Psychology. Psychophysiology Sequential Approach Serial Learning - physiology Students Undergraduate Students Universities |
| title | Generating and Evaluating Options for Decision Making: The Impact of Sequentially Presented Evidence |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-19T19%3A23%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Generating%20and%20Evaluating%20Options%20for%20Decision%20Making:%20The%20Impact%20of%20Sequentially%20Presented%20Evidence&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20experimental%20psychology.%20Learning,%20memory,%20and%20cognition&rft.au=Sprenger,%20Amber&rft.date=2012-05-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=550&rft.epage=575&rft.pages=550-575&rft.issn=0278-7393&rft.eissn=1939-1285&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/a0026036&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E904195315%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=904195315&rft_id=info:pmid/22082233&rft_ericid=EJ991421&rfr_iscdi=true |