Psychological review最新文献

In this article, we compare two theories of habituation: the standard operating processes (SOP) and the multiple time scales (MTS) models. Both theories propose that habituation is due to a reduction in the difference between actual and remembered stimulation. Although the two approaches explain short-term habituation using a similar nonassociative mechanism based on a time-decaying memory of recent stimulus presentations, their understanding of retention of habituation or long-term habituation differs. SOP suggests that retention of habituation happens through associative retrieval from a long-term memory store, while MTS relies on the differential decay rate of a series of memory units. This essential difference implies that spontaneous recovery, which refers to the return of the response to levels above those reached during habituation, is predominantly a consequence of a mixture of decay and loss of association for SOP and exclusively of decay for MTS. We analyze these mechanisms conceptually and mathematically and demonstrate their functioning with computer simulations of conceptual and published experiments. We evaluate both theories regarding parsimony and explanatory power and propose potential experiments to evaluate their predictions. We provide MATLAB-Simulink and Python codes for the simulations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

One of the most important challenges in decision theory has been how to reconcile the normative expectations from Bayesian theory with the apparent fallacies that are common in probabilistic reasoning. Recently, Bayesian models have been driven by the insight that apparent fallacies are due to sampling errors or biases in estimating (Bayesian) probabilities. An alternative way to explain apparent fallacies is by invoking different probability rules, specifically the probability rules from quantum theory. Arguably, quantum cognitive models offer a more unified explanation for a large body of findings, problematic from a baseline classical perspective. This work addresses two major corresponding theoretical challenges: first, a framework is needed which incorporates both Bayesian and quantum influences, recognizing the fact that there is evidence for both in human behavior. Second, there is empirical evidence which goes beyond any current Bayesian and quantum model. We develop a model for probabilistic reasoning, seamlessly integrating both Bayesian and quantum models of reasoning and augmented by a sequential sampling process, which maps subjective probabilistic estimates to observable responses. Our model, called the Quantum Sequential Sampler, is compared to the currently leading Bayesian model, the Bayesian Sampler (J. Zhu et al., 2020) using a new experiment, producing one of the largest data sets in probabilistic reasoning to this day. The Quantum Sequential Sampler embodies several new components, which we argue offer a more theoretically accurate approach to probabilistic reasoning. Moreover, our empirical tests revealed a new, surprising systematic overestimation of probabilities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Food and eating are fundamental for survival but also have significant impacts on health, psychology, sociology, and economics. Understanding what motivates people to eat can provide insights into "adaptive" eating behavior, which is especially important due to the increasing prevalence of health-related conditions such as obesity. There has been considerable interest in developing theoretical models and associated constructs that explain individual differences in eating behavior. However, many of these models contain overlapping theories and shared theoretical mechanisms of action. Currently, there is no recognized standard framework that integrates psychological, physiological, and neurobiological theory to help explain human eating behavior. The aim of the current article was to review key psychological theories in relation to energy balance, homeostasis, energy intake, and motivation to eat and begin to develop a comprehensive framework of relevant factors that drive eating behavior. The key findings from this review suggest that eating behavior is conceptualized by elements of dual process models, which include conscious processing (reflective factors) and automatic responses to desires, environmental cues, habits, and associative learning. These processes are mediated by neurobiology and physiological signaling (homeostatic feedback) of energy balance, which is more tolerant of positive than negative energy balances. From a synthesis of available evidence, it is suggested that eating behavior constructs (traits) can be explained by three latent constructs: reflective, reactive, and homeostatic eating. By understanding the interplay between reflective, reactive, and homeostatic processes, interventions can be developed that tailor treatments to target key aspects of eating behavior. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

We present a theory of belief dynamics that explains the interplay between internal beliefs in people's minds and beliefs of others in their external social environments. The networks of belief theory goes beyond existing theories of belief dynamics in three ways. First, it provides an explicit connection between belief networks in individual minds and belief dynamics on social networks. The connection, absent from most previous theories, is established through people's social beliefs or perceived beliefs of others. Second, the theory recognizes that the correspondence between social beliefs and others' actual beliefs can be imperfect, because social beliefs are affected by personal beliefs as well as by the actual beliefs of others. Past theories of belief dynamics on social networks do not distinguish between perceived and actual beliefs of others. Third, the theory explains diverse belief dynamics phenomena parsimoniously through the differences in attention and the resulting felt dissonances in personal, social, and external parts of belief networks. We implement our theoretical assumptions in a computational model within a statistical physics framework and derive model predictions. We find support for our theoretical assumptions and model predictions in two large survey studies (N₁ = 973, N₂ = 669). We then derive insights about diverse phenomena related to belief dynamics, including group consensus and polarization, group radicalization, minority influence, and different empirically observed belief distributions. We discuss how the theory goes beyond different existing models of belief dynamics and outline promising directions for future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Dynamic models of choice typically describe the decision-making process in terms of the degree or balance of support for available response options. However, these alternative-specific representations of support are liable to fail when the available options change during the course of a decision. We suggest that people may use alternative-general representations, where stimulus feature information-rather than option-specific support-is accumulated over time and mapped onto support for available options as they appear. We tested alternative-specific and alternative-general models of choice in two perceptual experiments where the available options could change during a trial. In the first study, we showed that changing the choice options partway through a trial resulted in no substantial difference in performance relative to a condition where the final options were always onscreen. This was supported by a quantitative model comparison that strongly favored an alternative-general (geometric) model over two alternative-specific models (diffusion and racing accumulator models). In the second study, the stimulus primed specific unavailable responses to test whether irrelevant support for unavailable options was integrated into the decision process. This study elicited a pattern of accuracy that could not have occurred unless participants accumulated support for options that were not yet available. Together, these experiments and modeling results indicate that the majority of participants rely on alternative-general representations of evidence during dynamic decisions among options that can change over time. Future work on decision behavior and its neural antecedents should explore the predictions of these alternative-general theories of choice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Understanding the mechanisms enabling the learning and flexible use of knowledge in context-appropriate ways has been a major focus of research in the study of both semantic cognition and cognitive control. We present a unified model of semantics and control that addresses these questions from both perspectives. The model provides a coherent view of how semantic knowledge, and the ability to flexibly access and deploy that knowledge to meet current task demands, arises from end-to-end learning of the statistics of the environment. We show that the model addresses unresolved issues from both literatures, including how control operates over features that covary with one another and how control representations themselves are structured and emerge through learning, through a series of behavioral experiments and simulations. We conclude by discussing the implications of our approach to other fundamental questions in cognitive science, machine learning, and artificial intelligence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

The explanation of psychological phenomena is a central aim of psychological science. However, the nature of explanation and the processes by which we evaluate whether a theory explains a phenomenon are often unclear. Consequently, it is often unknown whether a given psychological theory indeed explains a phenomenon. We address this shortcoming by proposing a productive account of explanation: a theory explains a phenomenon to some degree if and only if a formal model of the theory produces the statistical pattern representing the phenomenon. Using this account, we outline a workable methodology of explanation: (a) explicating a verbal theory into a formal model, (b) representing phenomena as statistical patterns in data, and (c) assessing whether the formal model produces these statistical patterns. In addition, we provide three major criteria for evaluating the goodness of an explanation (precision, robustness, and empirical relevance), and examine some cases of explanatory breakdowns. Finally, we situate our framework within existing theories of explanation from philosophy of science and discuss how our approach contributes to constructing and developing better psychological theories. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).