Expecting the unexpected: Violation of expectation shifts strategies toward information exploration.

IF 2.1 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance Pub Date : 2019-04-01 Epub Date: 2019-02-28 DOI:10.1037/xhp0000622
Hui Chen, Niya Yan, Ping Zhu, Brad Wyble, Baruch Eitam, Mowei Shen
{"title":"Expecting the unexpected: Violation of expectation shifts strategies toward information exploration.","authors":"Hui Chen,&nbsp;Niya Yan,&nbsp;Ping Zhu,&nbsp;Brad Wyble,&nbsp;Baruch Eitam,&nbsp;Mowei Shen","doi":"10.1037/xhp0000622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As our environment is frequently changing, it is common that our expectations are violated by unexpected stimuli or events, which leaves us uncertain about which pieces of information will be useful in the future. It is unclear how an expectation violation affects the subsequent control settings for processing of information. The current study directly addressed this issue by employing a double-surprise-trial paradigm based on the attribute amnesia task (Chen & Wyble, 2015a). In Experiment 1, participants were asked to report the location of a target letter presented among distractor digits on several trials and were then unexpectedly asked to report a different attribute (color or identity) of the target letter. In the next trial, participants were asked another unexpected question about the other attribute (identity or color respectively). The results show that, despite participants' poor performance in the first surprise trial, which replicated the attribute amnesia effect, their memory performance in the second surprise trial was dramatically improved, even when the probed attribute was different from that of the first surprise trial. This was also true in Experiment 2, where 15 trials were inserted between the two surprise trials. Experiment 3 further clarified that this effect is not triggered by the mere presence of a surprise test, but rather the violation of expectation about the nature of a surprise test. These results suggest the operation of an adaptive control mechanism that reduces the selectivity of processing in the face of unexpected events. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":50195,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance","volume":"45 4","pages":"513-522"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000622","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/2/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

As our environment is frequently changing, it is common that our expectations are violated by unexpected stimuli or events, which leaves us uncertain about which pieces of information will be useful in the future. It is unclear how an expectation violation affects the subsequent control settings for processing of information. The current study directly addressed this issue by employing a double-surprise-trial paradigm based on the attribute amnesia task (Chen & Wyble, 2015a). In Experiment 1, participants were asked to report the location of a target letter presented among distractor digits on several trials and were then unexpectedly asked to report a different attribute (color or identity) of the target letter. In the next trial, participants were asked another unexpected question about the other attribute (identity or color respectively). The results show that, despite participants' poor performance in the first surprise trial, which replicated the attribute amnesia effect, their memory performance in the second surprise trial was dramatically improved, even when the probed attribute was different from that of the first surprise trial. This was also true in Experiment 2, where 15 trials were inserted between the two surprise trials. Experiment 3 further clarified that this effect is not triggered by the mere presence of a surprise test, but rather the violation of expectation about the nature of a surprise test. These results suggest the operation of an adaptive control mechanism that reduces the selectivity of processing in the face of unexpected events. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
期待意想不到的事情:违反期望会使策略转向信息探索。
由于我们的环境经常变化,我们的预期通常会被意想不到的刺激或事件所违背,这让我们不确定哪些信息在未来会有用。目前尚不清楚期望违反如何影响信息处理的后续控制设置。目前的研究直接解决了这一问题,采用了基于属性遗忘任务的双惊喜试验范式(Chen & Wyble, 2015)。在实验1中,参与者被要求在几次试验中报告在干扰数字中出现的目标字母的位置,然后出乎意料地要求报告目标字母的不同属性(颜色或身份)。在接下来的试验中,参与者被问到另一个意想不到的问题,关于另一个属性(分别是身份或颜色)。结果表明,尽管参与者在重复属性遗忘效应的第一次惊喜试验中表现不佳,但在第二次惊喜试验中,即使被探测的属性与第一次惊喜试验不同,他们的记忆表现也得到了显著提高。在实验2中也是如此,在两个意外试验之间插入了15个试验。实验3进一步阐明了这一效应并非仅仅是由于意外测试的存在而触发的,而是由于对意外测试性质的期望的违背。这些结果表明,在面对意外事件时,一种自适应控制机制的运作降低了处理的选择性。(PsycINFO数据库记录(c) 2019 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
9.50%
发文量
145
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance publishes studies on perception, control of action, perceptual aspects of language processing, and related cognitive processes.
期刊最新文献
Latent memory traces for prospective items in visual working memory. Persistent effects of salience in visual working memory: Limits of cue-driven guidance. The contribution of motor identity prediction to temporal binding. The influence of origin and valence of words on the social judgments of unknown people. Submentalizing: Clarifying how domain general processes explain spontaneous perspective-taking.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1