↓ Skip to main content

Rule abstraction, model-based choice, and cognitive reflection

Overview of attention for article published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Rule abstraction, model-based choice, and cognitive reflection
Published in
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, February 2016
DOI 10.3758/s13423-016-1012-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hilary J. Don, Micah B. Goldwater, A. Ross Otto, Evan J. Livesey

Abstract

Numerous tasks in learning and cognition have demonstrated differences in response patterns that may reflect the operation of two distinct systems. For example, causal and reinforcement learning tasks each show responding that considers abstract structure as well as responding based on simple associations. Nevertheless, there has been little attempt to verify whether these tasks are measuring related processes. The current study therefore investigated the relationship between rule- and feature-based generalization in a causal learning task, and model-based and model-free responding in a reinforcement learning task, including cognitive reflection as a predictor of individual tendencies to use controlled, deliberative processes in these tasks. We found that the use of rule-based generalization in a patterning task was a significant predictor of model-based, but not model-free, choice. Individual differences in cognitive reflection were significantly correlated with performance in both tasks, although this did not predict variation in model-based choice independently of rule-based generalization. Thus, although there is evidence of stable individual differences in the use of higher order processes across tasks, there may also be differences in mechanisms that these tasks reveal.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Sweden 1 2%
Unknown 61 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 24%
Student > Master 11 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 13%
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 6 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 33 52%
Neuroscience 4 6%
Computer Science 3 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 11 17%