Displaying 1 - 7 of 7
-
Poletiek, F. H., & Olfers, K. J. F. (2016). Authentication by the crowd: How lay students identify the style of a 17th century artist. CODART e-Zine, 8. Retrieved from http://ezine.codart.nl/17/issue/57/artikel/19-21-june-madrid/?id=349#!/page/3.
-
Poletiek, F. H., Fitz, H., & Bocanegra, B. R. (2016). What baboons can (not) tell us about natural language grammars. Cognition, 151, 108-112. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.04.016.
Abstract
Rey et al. (2012) present data from a study with baboons that they interpret in support of the idea that center-embedded structures in human language have their origin in low level memory mechanisms and associative learning. Critically, the authors claim that the baboons showed a behavioral preference that is consistent with center-embedded sequences over other types of sequences. We argue that the baboons’ response patterns suggest that two mechanisms are involved: first, they can be trained to associate a particular response with a particular stimulus, and, second, when faced with two conditioned stimuli in a row, they respond to the most recent one first, copying behavior they had been rewarded for during training. Although Rey et al. (2012) ‘experiment shows that the baboons’ behavior is driven by low level mechanisms, it is not clear how the animal behavior reported, bears on the phenomenon of Center Embedded structures in human syntax. Hence, (1) natural language syntax may indeed have been shaped by low level mechanisms, and (2) the baboons’ behavior is driven by low level stimulus response learning, as Rey et al. propose. But is the second evidence for the first? We will discuss in what ways this study can and cannot give evidential value for explaining the origin of Center Embedded recursion in human grammar. More generally, their study provokes an interesting reflection on the use of animal studies in order to understand features of the human linguistic system. -
Poletiek, F. H., & Rassin E. (
Eds. ). (2005). Het (on)bewuste [Special Issue]. De Psycholoog. -
Poletiek, F. H., & Van den Bos, E. J. (2005). Het onbewuste is een dader met een motief. De Psycholoog, 40(1), 11-17.
-
Poletiek, F. H. (2005). The proof of the pudding is in the eating: Translating Popper's philosophy into a model for testing behaviour. In K. I. Manktelow, & M. C. Chung (
Eds. ), Psychology of reasoning: Theoretical and historical perspectives (pp. 333-347). Hove: Psychology Press. -
Poletiek, F. H. (2000). De beoordelaar dobbelt niet - denkt hij. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie en haar Grensgebieden, 55(5), 246-249.
-
Poletiek, F. H., & Berndsen, M. (2000). Hypothesis testing as risk behaviour with regard to beliefs. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), 107-123. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<107:AID-BDM349>3.0.CO;2-P.
Abstract
In this paper hypothesis‐testing behaviour is compared to risk‐taking behaviour. It is proposed that choosing a suitable test for a given hypothesis requires making a preposterior analysis of two aspects of such a test: the probability of obtaining supporting evidence and the evidential value of this evidence. This consideration resembles the one a gambler makes when choosing among bets, each having a probability of winning and an amount to be won. A confirmatory testing strategy can be defined within this framework as a strategy directed at maximizing either the probability or the value of a confirming outcome. Previous theories on testing behaviour have focused on the human tendency to maximize the probability of a confirming outcome. In this paper, two experiments are presented in which participants tend to maximize the confirming value of the test outcome. Motivational factors enhance this tendency dependent on the context of the testing situation. Both this result and the framework are discussed in relation to other studies in the field of testing behaviour.
Share this page