Glöckner Andreas, Hilbig Benjamin E, Jekel Marc
Department of Psychology, University of Göttingen, Germany; Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn, Germany.
Department of Psychology, University of Mannheim, Germany; Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn, Germany.
Cognition. 2014 Dec;133(3):641-66. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.017. Epub 2014 Sep 20.
There is broad consensus that human cognition is adaptive. However, the vital question of how exactly this adaptivity is achieved has remained largely open. Herein, we contrast two frameworks which account for adaptive decision making, namely broad and general single-mechanism accounts vs. multi-strategy accounts. We propose and fully specify a single-mechanism model for decision making based on parallel constraint satisfaction processes (PCS-DM) and contrast it theoretically and empirically against a multi-strategy account. To achieve sufficiently sensitive tests, we rely on a multiple-measure methodology including choice, reaction time, and confidence data as well as eye-tracking. Results show that manipulating the environmental structure produces clear adaptive shifts in choice patterns - as both frameworks would predict. However, results on the process level (reaction time, confidence), in information acquisition (eye-tracking), and from cross-predicting choice consistently corroborate single-mechanisms accounts in general, and the proposed parallel constraint satisfaction model for decision making in particular.
人们普遍认为人类认知具有适应性。然而,这种适应性究竟是如何实现的这个关键问题在很大程度上仍未得到解答。在此,我们对比了两种解释适应性决策的框架,即宽泛且通用的单一机制解释与多策略解释。我们提出并全面阐述了一种基于并行约束满足过程的决策单一机制模型(PCS - DM),并在理论和实证方面将其与多策略解释进行对比。为了进行足够灵敏的测试,我们采用了一种多测量方法,包括选择、反应时间、信心数据以及眼动追踪。结果表明,正如两种框架所预测的那样,操纵环境结构会在选择模式上产生明显的适应性转变。然而,在过程层面(反应时间、信心)、信息获取(眼动追踪)以及交叉预测选择方面的结果总体上一致支持单一机制解释,特别是所提出的并行约束满足决策模型。