Presence and Absence: Reference Sets and Contingency Learning

Basierend auf einer theoretischen Unterscheidung zwischen Features und Dimensions von Garner (1978) wird eine neue Form des Attribut-Framings untersucht. Es wird zwischen dichotomen Variablen, die entweder eine anwesende oder eine abwesende Ausprägung zeigen (Features) und dichotomen Variablen, die zwei anwesende Ausprägungen zeigen (Dimensions) unterschieden. Sowohl theoretisch als auch empirisch werden Unterschiede in Vergleichsprozessen basierend auf Features und Dimensions untersucht. Dabei stehen die Konsequenzen für das Lernen von Zusammenhängen zwischen dichotomen Variablen (Kontingenzlernen) im Vordergrund. Es wird gezeigt, dass bei auf Features basierenden Vergleichsprozessen die Anwesenheit von Attributen im Vordergrund steht, während bei auf Dimensions basierenden Vergleichsprozessen Vergleiche innerhalb von Attributen im Vordergrund stehen. Für das Kontingenzlernen bedeutet das, dass bei Features sogenannte density biases (Allan & Jenkins, 1983) eine Rolle spielen (je mehr anwesende Ausprägungen, desto höher das Kontingenzurteil), während bei Dimensions sogenannte Pseudokontingenzen (Fiedler & Freytag, 2004) eine Rolle spielen (gemeinsame Randschiefen führen zu einem hohen Kontingenzurteil). Die abgeleiteten Hypothesen werden in neun Experimenten untersucht. Zusätzlich werden in der vorliegenden Arbeit statistische Eigenschaften von Kontingenzen zwischen zwei dichotomem Variablen in einem Simulationsframework analysiert

Fluid Intelligence Is (Much) More than Working Memory Capacity: An Experimental Analysis

Empirical evidence suggests a great positive association between measures of fluid intelligence and working memory capacity, which implied to some researchers that fluid intelligence is little more than working memory. Because this conclusion is mostly based on correlation analysis, a causal relationship between fluid intelligence and working memory has not yet been established. The aim of the present study was therefore to provide an experimental analysis of this relationship. In a first study, 60 participants worked on items of the Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM) while simultaneously engaging in one of four secondary tasks to load specific components of the working memory system. There was a diminishing effect of loading the central executive on the APM performance, which could explain 15% of the variance in the APM score. In a second study, we used the same experimental manipulations but replaced the dependent variable with complex working memory span tasks from three different domains. There was also a diminishing effect of the experimental manipulation on span task performance, which could now explain 40% of the variance. These findings suggest a causal effect of working memory functioning on fluid intelligence test performance, but they also imply that factors other than working memory functioning must contribute to fluid intelligence

Relational integrativity of prime-target pairs moderates congruity effects in evaluative priming

International audienc

Analytic and heuristic processes in the detection and resolution of conflict

Previous research with the ratio-bias task found larger response latencies for conflict trials where the heuristic- and analytic-based responses are assumed to be in opposition (e.g., choosing between 1/10 and 9/100 ratios of success) when compared to no-conflict trials where both processes converge on the same response (e.g., choosing between 1/10 and 11/100). This pattern is consistent with parallel dualprocess models, which assume that there is effective, rather than lax, monitoring of the output of heuristic processing. It is, however, unclear why conflict resolution sometimes fails. Ratio-biased choices may increase because of a decline in analytical reasoning (leaving heuristic-based responses unopposed) or to a rise in heuristic processing (making it more difficult for analytic processes to override the heuristic preferences). Using the process-dissociation procedure, we found that instructions to respond logically and response speed affected analytic (controlled) processing (C), leaving heuristic processing (H) unchanged, whereas the intuitive preference for large nominators (as assessed by responses to equal ratio trials) affected H but not C. These findings create new challenges to the debate between dual-process and singleprocess accounts, which are discussed.Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT)info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio