Deciding between accounts of the selection task: A reply to Oaksford (2002)

Authors: Feeney, Aidan¹; Handley, Simon²; Kentridge, Robert W.¹

Source: The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, Volume 56, Number 6, August 2003 , pp. 1079-1088(10)

Publisher: Psychology Press, part of the Taylor & Francis Group

Buy & download fulltext article:

Price: $50.43 plus tax (Refund Policy)

Abstract:

In this paper we report on our attempts to fit the optimal data selection (ODS) model (Oaksford & Chater, 1994; Oaksford, Chater, & Larkin, 2000) to the selection task data reported in Feeney and Handley (2000) and Handley, Feeney, and Harper (2002). Although Oaksford (2002b) reports good fits to the data described in Feeney and Handley (2000), the model does not adequately capture the data described in Handley et al. (2002). Furthermore, across all six of the experiments modelled here, the ODS model does not predict participants' behaviour at the level of selection rates for individual cards. Finally, when people's probability estimates are used in the modelling exercise, the model adequately captures only 1 out of 18 conditions described in Handley et al. We discuss the implications of these results for models of the selection task and claim that they support deductive, rather than probabilistic, accounts of the task.

Document Type: Research article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02724980245000034

Affiliations: 1: University of Durham, UK 2: University of Plymouth, UK

Publication date: 2003-08-01

More about this publication?