TY - JOUR
T1 - Correction to Ashby and Rakow (2014)
T2 - "Forgetting the Past: Individual Differences in Recency in Subjective Valuations From Experience", Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, (2014), Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 1153-1162
AU - Ashby, Nathaniel J S
AU - Rakow, Tim
PY - 2014/11/1
Y1 - 2014/11/1
N2 - Reports an error in "Forgetting the past: Individual differences in recency in subjective valuations from experience" by Nathaniel J. S. Ashby and Tim Rakow (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2014[Jul], Vol 40[4], 1153-1162). There was an error in how the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) were calculated with the punishment for parameters being subtracted rather than added. To correct for this error the SUMe models AIC scores reported in the tables (both individual, and group level M and Mdn.) should have 4 added to them, while the VUM and SWIM models AIC scores should have 8 added to them. Corrections to the results of Study 1, Study 2, and the second RT analysis are presented in the erratum. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2014-12458-001.) Recent research investigating decisions from experience suggests that not all information is treated equally in the decision process, with more recently encountered information having a greater impact. We report 2 studies investigating how this differential treatment of sequentially encountered information affects subjective valuations of risky prospects when observations of past outcomes must be used to estimate the prospect’s payoff distribution, and examine how individual differences in cognitive capacities influence information usage. In Study 1 we found that a sliding window of information model that averages a subset of (only) the most recently encountered outcomes (samples) fit the subjective valuation data for a portion of individuals better than models that integrate all observed outcomes. This pattern of results is replicated in Study 2, in which we also found that the amount of information used to form valuations varies greatly between individuals, and that individual difference in memory span explains a portion of this variation. Combined, these results suggest a process in which information usage is in part reliant on cognitive capacity, and where information aggregation appears to be memory based rather than online, providing new insight into the processes involved in the construction of valuation in experiential decisions
AB - Reports an error in "Forgetting the past: Individual differences in recency in subjective valuations from experience" by Nathaniel J. S. Ashby and Tim Rakow (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2014[Jul], Vol 40[4], 1153-1162). There was an error in how the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) were calculated with the punishment for parameters being subtracted rather than added. To correct for this error the SUMe models AIC scores reported in the tables (both individual, and group level M and Mdn.) should have 4 added to them, while the VUM and SWIM models AIC scores should have 8 added to them. Corrections to the results of Study 1, Study 2, and the second RT analysis are presented in the erratum. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2014-12458-001.) Recent research investigating decisions from experience suggests that not all information is treated equally in the decision process, with more recently encountered information having a greater impact. We report 2 studies investigating how this differential treatment of sequentially encountered information affects subjective valuations of risky prospects when observations of past outcomes must be used to estimate the prospect’s payoff distribution, and examine how individual differences in cognitive capacities influence information usage. In Study 1 we found that a sliding window of information model that averages a subset of (only) the most recently encountered outcomes (samples) fit the subjective valuation data for a portion of individuals better than models that integrate all observed outcomes. This pattern of results is replicated in Study 2, in which we also found that the amount of information used to form valuations varies greatly between individuals, and that individual difference in memory span explains a portion of this variation. Combined, these results suggest a process in which information usage is in part reliant on cognitive capacity, and where information aggregation appears to be memory based rather than online, providing new insight into the processes involved in the construction of valuation in experiential decisions
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84925640670&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1037/xlm0000087
DO - 10.1037/xlm0000087
M3 - Comment/debate
AN - SCOPUS:84925640670
VL - 40
SP - 1509
JO - Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition
JF - Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition
IS - 6
ER -