Coordinating several mental strategies favors integration: Evidence from human judgment

Abstract

Individuals solve many real-world problems by applying distinct mental strategies, requiring them to coordinate strategy use. Theories of the mind often postulate that individuals apply only one strategy at a given time, implying shifting between strategies. On the flip side, integrating or blending knowledge from several strategies often proves beneficial. A generalized learning model reveals that developing domain-specific strategies is only possible if people keep more than one strategy active at any given point in time, rendering trial-by-trial strategy shifts less plausible. We test model predictions against human performance in the domain of judgment. Simulations show that the model replicates how individuals coordinate memory and rule-based strategies. Results from two experiments in which individuals made judgments for rules and exceptions support the conclusion that strategy-blending better predicts than strategy-shifting how individuals learn to coordinate memory- and rule-based strategies. Learning models thus provide a suitable tool for understanding strategy coordination.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 0 citations exist upstream.