Deciding between accounts of the selection task: A reply to Oaksford (2002)

Feeney, A; Handley, S.J.; Kentridge, R.W.

Abstract

In this paper we report on our attempts to fit the optimal data selection (ODS) model (Oaksford & Chater, 1994; Oaksford, Chater, & Larkin, 2000) to the selection task data reported in Feeney and Handley (2000) and Handley, Feeney, and Harper (2002). Although Oaksford (2002b) reports good fits to the data described in Feeney and Handley (2000), the model does not adequately capture the data described in Handley et al. (2002). Furthermore, across all six of the experiments modelled here, the ODS model does not predict participants' behaviour at the level of selection rates for individual cards. Finally, when people's probability estimates are used in the modelling exercise, the model adequately captures only 1 out of 18 conditions described in Handley et al. We discuss the implications of these results for models of the selection task and claim that they support deductive, rather than probabilistic, accounts of the task

Citation

Feeney, A., Handley, S., & Kentridge, R. (2003). Deciding between accounts of the selection task: A reply to Oaksford (2002). Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, 56(6), 1079-1088. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980245000034

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Publication Date: 2003-08
• Deposit Date: Mar 23, 2007
• Journal: The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A - Human Experimental Psychology
• Print ISSN: 0272-4987
• Electronic ISSN: 1464-0740
• Publisher: Psychology Press
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 56
• Issue: 6
• Pages: 1079-1088
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980245000034
• Publisher URL: http://www.dur.ac.uk/aidan.feeney/PDFs/QJEP.2003.pdf