scholarly journals Individual differences in information processing during concept learning

1969 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 287-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonard I. Jacobson ◽  
Jim Millham ◽  
Stephen E. Berger
Keyword(s):  
Information Processing ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Concept Learning

Attachment and Field Dependence: Individual Differences in Information Processing

2004 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrizia Vermigli ◽  
Alessandro Toni
Keyword(s):  
Information Processing ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Field Dependence ◽  
Attachment Styles ◽  
Close Relationships ◽  
Adult Age ◽  
Males And Females ◽  
Figure Test ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Measure Field

The present research analyzes the relationship between attachment styles at an adult age and field dependence in order to identify possible individual differences in information processing. The “Experience in Close Relationships” test of Brennan et al. was administered to a sample of 380 individuals (160 males, 220 females), while a subsample of 122 subjects was given the Embedded Figure Test to measure field dependence. Confirming the starting hypothesis, the results have shown that individuals with different attachment styles have a different way of perceiving the figure against the background. Ambivalent and avoidant individuals lie at the two extremes of the same dimension while secure individuals occupy the central part. Significant differences also emerged between males and females.

Individual differences in concept learning

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matt J. Robbins ◽  
Mark A. McDaniel
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Concept Learning

scholarly journals Less Illusion of a Just World in People with Formally Diagnosed Autism and Higher Autistic Traits

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Bertrams
Keyword(s):  
Information Processing ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Locus Of Control ◽  
Autistic Traits ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Autism Diagnosis ◽  
Just World ◽  
External Locus ◽  
General Belief ◽  
Autistic People

AbstractPeople differ in how strongly they believe that, in general, one gets what (s)he deserves (i.e., individual differences in the general belief in a just world). In this study (N = 588; n = 60 with a formal autism diagnosis), whether or not autistic people and those with high autistic traits have a relatively low general belief in a just world is examined. The results revealed the expected relationship between autism/higher autistic traits and a lower general belief in a just world. In a subsample (n = 388), personal belief in a just world, external locus of control, and self-deception mediated this relationship. These findings are discussed in terms of autistic strengths (less biased information processing) and problems (lowered well-being).

Information Processing vs Visual Attention during Incidental Learning

1976 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 555-561 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Wyrick ◽  
Vincent J. Tempone ◽  
Jack Capehart
Keyword(s):  
Information Processing ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Visual Attention ◽  
Eye Movement ◽  
Discrimination Training ◽  
Incidental Learning ◽  
Intentional Learning ◽  
Order Information ◽  
Level Of Training ◽  
The Relationship

The relationship between attention and incidental learning during discrimination training was studied in 30 children, aged 10 to 11. A polymetric eye-movement recorder measured direct visual attention. Consistent with previous findings, recall of incidental stimuli was greatest during the initial and terminal stages of intentional learning. Contrary to previous explanations, however, visual attention to incidental stimuli was not related to training. While individual differences in attention to incidental stimuli were predictive of recall, attention to incidental stimuli was not related to level of training. Results suggested that changes in higher order information processing rather than direct visual attention were responsible for the curvilinear learning of incidental stimuli during intentional training.

scholarly journals Prospect Theory Reflects Selective Allocation of Attention

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thorsten Pachur ◽  
Michael Schulte-Mecklenbeck
Keyword(s):  
Information Processing ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Loss Aversion ◽  
Weighting Function ◽  
Risky Choice ◽  
Process Models ◽  
Attention Allocation ◽  
Psychological Constructs ◽  
Probability Information ◽  
As If

There is a disconnect in the literature between analyses of risky choice based on cumulativeprospect theory (CPT) and work on predecisional information processing. One likely reason is that for expectation models (e.g., CPT) it is often assumed that people only behaved as if they conducted the computations leading to the predicted choice, and that the models are thus mute with regard to information processing. We suggest that key psychological constructs in CPT, such as loss aversion and outcome and probability sensitivity, can be interpreted in terms of attention allocation. In two experiments, we tested hypotheses about specific links between CPT parameters and attentional regularities. Experiment 1 used process tracing to monitor participants’ predecisional attention allocation to outcome and probability information. As hypothesized, individual differences in CPT’s loss-aversion, outcome-sensitivity, and probability-sensitivity parameters (estimated from participants’ choices) were systematically associated with individual differences in attention allocation to outcome and probability information. For instance, loss aversion was associated with the relative attention allocated to loss and gain outcomes, and a more strongly curved weighting function was associated with less attention allocated to probabilities. Experiment 2 manipulated participants’ attention to losses or gains, causing systematic differences in CPT’s loss aversion parameter. This result indicates that attention allocation can to some extent cause choice regularities that are captured by CPT. Our findings demonstrate an “as-if” model’s capacity to reflect characteristics of information processing. We suggest that the observed CPT–attention links can be harnessed to inform the development of process models of risky choice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document