Abstract
The effect of cue reliability was tested in a two-cue multiple-cue probability learning (MCPL) task. Subjects were 42 undergraduates. The cue validities were.78 and.37. Unreliability in a cue was defined as variability in multiple observations of that cue on a given trial. That variability was provided by adding random errors to the true value of the cue. One group was given consistent cues (i.e., the more valid cue was the more reliable cue), one group was given inconsistent cues, and the control group was given true scores. Cue reliability did not affect subjects' consistency or achievement, but did interact with the presence of outcome feedback. The subjective weights showed that subjects thought they weighted the more reliable cue more heavily regardless of the cue validities or their actual cue weightings. There were wide individual differences in performance, illustrating the need for an idiographic-statistical approach in studying decision making.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
