What Makes Mental Modeling Difficult? Normative Data for the Multidimensional Relational Reasoning Task

被引:5
|
作者
Cortes, Robert A. [1 ]
Weinberger, Adam B. [1 ,2 ]
Colaizzi, Griffin A. [1 ]
Porter, Grace F. [1 ]
Dyke, Emily L. [1 ]
Keaton, Holly O. [1 ]
Walker, Dakota L. [1 ]
Green, Adam E. [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Georgetown Univ, Dept Psychol, Washington, DC 20057 USA
[2] Univ Penn, Ctr Neuroaesthet, Philadelphia, PA USA
[3] Georgetown Univ, Interdisciplinary Program Neurosci, Washington, DC USA
来源
FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY | 2021年 / 12卷
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
relational reasoning; mental model; difficulty; multidimensional; normative; mixed-effects; MISSING-DATA DESIGNS; SEMANTIC DISTANCE; SAMPLE-SIZES;
D O I
10.3389/fpsyg.2021.668256
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Relational reasoning is a complex form of human cognition involving the evaluation of relations between mental representations of information. Prior studies have modified stimulus properties of relational reasoning problems and examined differences in difficulty between different problem types. While subsets of these stimulus properties have been addressed in separate studies, there has not been a comprehensive study, to our knowledge, which investigates all of these properties in the same set of stimuli. This investigative gap has resulted in different findings across studies which vary in task design, making it challenging to determine what stimulus properties make relational reasoning-and the putative formation of mental models underlying reasoning-difficult. In this article, we present the Multidimensional Relational Reasoning Task (MRRT), a task which systematically varied an array of stimulus properties within a single set of relational reasoning problems. Using a mixed-effects framework, we demonstrate that reasoning problems containing a greater number of the premises as well as multidimensional relations led to greater task difficulty. The MRRT has been made publicly available for use in future research, along with normative data regarding the relative difficulty of each problem.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 20 条
  • [1] What makes a categorization task difficult?
    Leola A. Alfonso-Reese
    F. Gregory Ashby
    David H. Brainard
    Perception & Psychophysics, 2002, 64 : 570 - 583
  • [2] What makes a categorization task difficult?
    Alfonso-Reese, LA
    Ashby, FG
    Brainard, DH
    PERCEPTION & PSYCHOPHYSICS, 2002, 64 (04): : 570 - 583
  • [3] What Makes the Ephemeral Reward Task So Difficult?
    Mueller, Peyton M.
    Peng, Daniel N.
    Burroughs, William C.
    Zentall, Thomas R.
    JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE PSYCHOLOGY, 2024, 138 (03) : 150 - 156
  • [4] What makes a task difficult? An Empirical Study of Perceptions of Task Difficulty
    Leano, Rafael
    Chattopadhyay, Souti
    Sarma, Anita
    2017 IEEE SYMPOSIUM ON VISUAL LANGUAGES AND HUMAN-CENTRIC COMPUTING (VL/HCC), 2017, : 67 - +
  • [5] What makes relational reasoning smart? Revisiting the perceptual-to-relational shift in the development of generalization
    Bulloch, Megan J.
    Opfer, John E.
    DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE, 2009, 12 (01) : 114 - 122
  • [6] A set for relational reasoning: Facilitation of algebraic modeling by a fraction task
    DeWolf, Melissa
    Bassok, Miriam
    Holyoak, Keith J.
    JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL CHILD PSYCHOLOGY, 2016, 152 : 351 - 366
  • [7] What makes a word difficult? Insights into the mental representation of technical terms
    Regina Jucks
    Elisabeth Paus
    Metacognition and Learning, 2012, 7 : 91 - 111
  • [8] What makes a word difficult? Insights into the mental representation of technical terms
    Jucks, Regina
    Paus, Elisabeth
    METACOGNITION AND LEARNING, 2012, 7 (02) : 91 - 111
  • [9] WHAT MAKES A TASK DIFFICULT - A STUDY OF THE RELATION BETWEEN TASK REQUIREMENTS, TASK-PERFORMANCE, AND PERCEIVED DIFFICULTY
    WAERN, Y
    PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH-PSYCHOLOGISCHE FORSCHUNG, 1982, 44 (04): : 393 - 408
  • [10] What makes the windows task difficult for young children: Rule inference or rule use?
    Simpson, A
    Riggs, KJ
    Simon, M
    JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL CHILD PSYCHOLOGY, 2004, 87 (02) : 155 - 170