Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied - Vol 15, Iss 3

Sonification design for complex work domains: Dimensions and distractors.

2009

Sonification—representing data in sound—is a potential method for supporting human operators who have to monitor dynamic processes. Previous research has investigated a limited number of sound dimensions and has not systematically investigated the impact of dimensional interactions on sonification effectiveness. In three experiments the authors investigated accuracy for identifying changes in six target auditory dimensions of a continuous pulse stream under three conditions: no distractor, one distractor, and five distractors. In Experiment 1 amplitude, frequency, harmonics, speed, tremolo (cycles per pulse), and width were tested. Accuracy and patterns of interaction between the dimensions were mapped. In Experiment 2 the same dimensions were tested but tremolo was operationalized as cycles per second (Hz). The patterns of interaction between the temporal dimensions differed from Experiment 1. In Experiment 3 the amplitude contour of the pulse stream was changed. The dimensions tested were amplitude, frequency, formants, speed, tremolo (cycles per period), and width. Results showed low accuracy for formants and many interactions, both positive and negative between the dimensions. The authors interpret the results in terms of theories of perceptual interference in auditory dimensions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved)

Evaluating science arguments: Evidence, uncertainty, and argument strength.

2009

Public debates about socioscientific issues are increasingly prevalent, but the public response to messages about, for example, climate change, does not always seem to match the seriousness of the problem identified by scientists. Is there anything unique about appeals based on scientific evidence—do people evaluate science and nonscience arguments differently? In an attempt to apply a systematic framework to people’s evaluation of science arguments, the authors draw on the Bayesian approach to informal argumentation. The Bayesian approach permits questions about how people evaluate science arguments to be posed and comparisons to be made between the evaluation of science and nonscience arguments. In an experiment involving three separate argument evaluation tasks, the authors investigated whether people’s evaluations of science and nonscience arguments differed in any meaningful way. Although some differences were observed in the relative strength of science and nonscience arguments, the evaluation of science arguments was determined by the same factors as nonscience arguments. Our results suggest that science communicators wishing to construct a successful appeal can make use of the Bayesian framework to distinguish strong and weak arguments. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved)

Bringing meaning to numbers: The impact of evaluative categories on decisions.

2009

Decision makers are often quite poor at using numeric information in decisions. The results of 4 experiments demonstrate that a manipulation of evaluative meaning (i.e., the extent to which an attribute can be mapped onto a good/bad scale; this manipulation is accomplished through the addition of visual boundary lines and evaluative labels to a graphical format) has a robust influence in health judgments and choices and across diverse adult populations. The manipulation resulted in greater use of numeric quality-of-care information in judgments and less reliance on an irrelevant affective state among the less numerate. Recall results for provided quality-of-care numbers suggested that the manipulation did not influence depth of number processing with the exception of cost information that was not remembered as well. Results of a reaction-time paradigm revealed that feelings were more accessible than thoughts in the presence of the manipulation, suggesting that the effect may be due, at least in part, to an affective mechanism. Numeric information is often provided in decisions, but may not be usable by consumers without assistance from information providers. Implications for consumer decision making and the functions of affect are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved)

Text skimming: The process and effectiveness of foraging through text under time pressure.

2009

Is Skim reading effective? How do readers allocate their attention selectively? The authors report 3 experiments that use expository texts and allow readers only enough time to read half of each document. Experiment 1 found that, relative to reading half the text, skimming improved memory for important ideas from a text but did not improve memory of less important details or of inferences made from information within the text. Experiment 2 found no advantage of skimming over reading the first or second half of every paragraph. Two final experiments using a hierarchical, Website-like layout of documents showed that the advantage of skimming found in Experiment 1 was dependent on the linkages between pages and, thus, the ease with which participants could navigate through the text. Data on page-by-page reading times and eye-tracking analyses from Experiment 2 indicated that Skim readers spent more time reading text that was earlier in the paragraph, toward the top of the page and in an earlier page of the document. These findings were interpreted as evidence in support of a “satisficing” account of skimming process. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved)

The pretesting effect: Do unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance learning?

2009

Testing previously studied information enhances long-term memory, particularly when the information is successfully retrieved from memory. The authors examined the effect of unsuccessful retrieval attempts on learning. Participants in 5 experiments read an essay about vision. In the test condition, they were asked about embedded concepts before reading the passage; in the extended study condition, they were given a longer time to read the passage. To distinguish the effects of testing from attention direction, the authors emphasized the tested concepts in both conditions, using italics or bolded keywords or, in Experiment 5, by presenting the questions but not asking participants to answer them before reading the passage. Posttest performance was better in the test condition than in the extended study condition in all experiments—a pretesting effect—even though only items that were not successfully retrieved on the pretest were analyzed. The testing effect appears to be attributable, in part, to the role unsuccessful tests play in enhancing future learning. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved)

Coping with fear through suppression and avoidance of threatening information.

2009

Fear appeal communications are widely used by social marketers in their efforts to persuade individuals to refrain from engaging in risky behaviors. The present research shows that exposure to a fear appeal can lead to the suppression of concepts semantically related to the threat and bias attentional resources away from threat-relevant information. Participants in the experimental condition viewed a fear appeal advertisement depicting the negative consequences of drinking and driving. The results of a reaction time task showed inhibited responses to words semantically related to drinking (e.g., beer, party) relative to a baseline group that controlled for priming effects (Experiment 1a) and level of fear (Experiment 1b). Furthermore, those in the experimental condition were shown to adopt an attention avoidance processing style, decreasing attention to alcohol-related advertisements appearing in a mock magazine (Experiments 2a and 2b). Because processing of alcohol-related advertising has been linked previously to an increase in drinking and driving, inhibited processing of such advertisements suggests a positive outcome of suppression effects. This contrasts with prior claims suggesting that suppression is counter to prevention-based efforts. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved)

Comments (0) - Read and Add your own Comments