收获异质性:选择性专业知识与机器学习。

IF 7.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychological methods Pub Date : 2024-10-07 DOI:10.1037/met0000640
Rumen Iliev,Alex Filipowicz,Francine Chen,Nikos Arechiga,Scott Carter,Emily Sumner,Totte Harinen,Kate Sieck,Kent Lyons,Charlene Wu
{"title":"收获异质性:选择性专业知识与机器学习。","authors":"Rumen Iliev,Alex Filipowicz,Francine Chen,Nikos Arechiga,Scott Carter,Emily Sumner,Totte Harinen,Kate Sieck,Kent Lyons,Charlene Wu","doi":"10.1037/met0000640","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The heterogeneity of outcomes in behavioral research has long been perceived as a challenge for the validity of various theoretical models. More recently, however, researchers have started perceiving heterogeneity as something that needs to be not only acknowledged but also actively addressed, particularly in applied research. A serious challenge, however, is that classical psychological methods are not well suited for making practical recommendations when heterogeneous outcomes are expected. In this article, we argue that heterogeneity requires a separation between basic and applied behavioral methods, and between different types of behavioral expertise. We propose a novel framework for evaluating behavioral expertise and suggest that selective expertise can easily be automated via various machine learning methods. We illustrate the value of our framework via an empirical study of the preferences towards battery electric vehicles. Our results suggest that a basic multiarm bandit algorithm vastly outperforms human expertise in selecting the best interventions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":20782,"journal":{"name":"Psychological methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Harvesting heterogeneity: Selective expertise versus machine learning.\",\"authors\":\"Rumen Iliev,Alex Filipowicz,Francine Chen,Nikos Arechiga,Scott Carter,Emily Sumner,Totte Harinen,Kate Sieck,Kent Lyons,Charlene Wu\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/met0000640\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The heterogeneity of outcomes in behavioral research has long been perceived as a challenge for the validity of various theoretical models. More recently, however, researchers have started perceiving heterogeneity as something that needs to be not only acknowledged but also actively addressed, particularly in applied research. A serious challenge, however, is that classical psychological methods are not well suited for making practical recommendations when heterogeneous outcomes are expected. In this article, we argue that heterogeneity requires a separation between basic and applied behavioral methods, and between different types of behavioral expertise. We propose a novel framework for evaluating behavioral expertise and suggest that selective expertise can easily be automated via various machine learning methods. We illustrate the value of our framework via an empirical study of the preferences towards battery electric vehicles. Our results suggest that a basic multiarm bandit algorithm vastly outperforms human expertise in selecting the best interventions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).\",\"PeriodicalId\":20782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological methods\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000640\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000640","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

长期以来,行为研究结果的异质性一直被认为是对各种理论模型有效性的挑战。但最近,研究人员开始认识到,异质性不仅需要承认,而且需要积极应对,尤其是在应用研究中。然而,一个严峻的挑战是,当预期会出现异质性结果时,经典的心理学方法并不适合提出切实可行的建议。在本文中,我们认为异质性要求将基础行为学方法与应用行为学方法以及不同类型的行为学专业知识区分开来。我们提出了一个新颖的行为专业知识评估框架,并认为选择性专业知识可以通过各种机器学习方法轻松实现自动化。我们通过对电池电动汽车偏好的实证研究来说明我们框架的价值。我们的研究结果表明,在选择最佳干预措施方面,基本的多臂强盗算法大大优于人类的专业知识。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Harvesting heterogeneity: Selective expertise versus machine learning.
The heterogeneity of outcomes in behavioral research has long been perceived as a challenge for the validity of various theoretical models. More recently, however, researchers have started perceiving heterogeneity as something that needs to be not only acknowledged but also actively addressed, particularly in applied research. A serious challenge, however, is that classical psychological methods are not well suited for making practical recommendations when heterogeneous outcomes are expected. In this article, we argue that heterogeneity requires a separation between basic and applied behavioral methods, and between different types of behavioral expertise. We propose a novel framework for evaluating behavioral expertise and suggest that selective expertise can easily be automated via various machine learning methods. We illustrate the value of our framework via an empirical study of the preferences towards battery electric vehicles. Our results suggest that a basic multiarm bandit algorithm vastly outperforms human expertise in selecting the best interventions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological methods
Psychological methods PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
159
期刊介绍: Psychological Methods is devoted to the development and dissemination of methods for collecting, analyzing, understanding, and interpreting psychological data. Its purpose is the dissemination of innovations in research design, measurement, methodology, and quantitative and qualitative analysis to the psychological community; its further purpose is to promote effective communication about related substantive and methodological issues. The audience is expected to be diverse and to include those who develop new procedures, those who are responsible for undergraduate and graduate training in design, measurement, and statistics, as well as those who employ those procedures in research.
期刊最新文献
Item response theory-based continuous test norming. Comments on the measurement of effect sizes for indirect effects in Bayesian analysis of variance. Lagged multidimensional recurrence quantification analysis for determining leader-follower relationships within multidimensional time series. The potential of preregistration in psychology: Assessing preregistration producibility and preregistration-study consistency. Harvesting heterogeneity: Selective expertise versus machine learning.
×
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