↓ Skip to main content

Most people do not ignore salient invalid cues in memory-based decisions

Overview of attention for article published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Most people do not ignore salient invalid cues in memory-based decisions
Published in
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, May 2012
DOI 10.3758/s13423-012-0248-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christine Platzer, Arndt Bröder

Abstract

Former experimental studies have shown that decisions from memory tend to rely only on a few cues, following simple noncompensatory heuristics like "take the best." However, it has also repeatedly been demonstrated that a pictorial, as opposed to a verbal, representation of cue information fosters the inclusion of more cues in compensatory strategies, suggesting a facilitated retrieval of cue patterns. These studies did not properly control for visual salience of cues, however. In the experiment reported here, the cue salience hierarchy established in a pilot study was either congruent or incongruent with the validity order of the cues. Only the latter condition increased compensatory decision making, suggesting that the apparent representational format effect is, rather, a salience effect: Participants automatically retrieve and incorporate salient cues irrespective of their validity. Results are discussed with respect to reaction time data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 2 3%
United States 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 63 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 28%
Student > Master 12 18%
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 8 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 38 56%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 11 16%