Abstract
The processes of hypothesis selection and testing were investigated in a simple multiple-cue learning task. Subjects learned to predict the numeric value of a criterion on the basis of a set of cues. The criterion was computed as the average of two of the cues plus random error. Following each trial, subjects were asked to select the two cues that they thought were relevant. The number of cues and the predictability of the criterion were varied factorially but, within the limits manipulated, did not affect performance to any appreciable degree. The results suggest that a subjective evaluation function based on the average of pairs of cues was operative and that a cut point was employed to decide whether to maintain or reject the current hypothesis.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, N. H. Algebraic models in perception. In E. C. Carterette & M. P. Friedman (Eds.), Handbook of perception (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press, 1974.
Bourne, L. E., Jr. Human conceptual behavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1966.
Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, E. A. A study of thinking. New York: Wiley, 1956.
Hammond, K. R., & Summers, D. A. Cognitive control. Psychological Review, 1972, 79, 58–67.
Norman, K. L. Dynamic processes in stimulus integration theory: The effects of feedback on the averaging of motor movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974, 102, 399–408. (a)
Norman, K. L. Rule learning in a stimulus integration task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974, 103, 941–947. (b)
Peterson, C. R., & Beach, L. R. Man as an intuitive statistician. Psychological Bulletin, 1967, 68, 29–46.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The author wishes to thank Michael Pruitt for his assistance in conducting this experiment.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Norman, K.L. Hypothesis testing in stimulus integration tasks of varying difficulty. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 9, 106–108 (1977). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03336943
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03336943