Great expectations: minor differences in initial instructions have a major impact on visual search in the absence of feedback

被引:0
作者
Patrick H. Cox
Dwight J. Kravitz
Stephen R. Mitroff
机构
[1] The George Washington University,Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences
来源
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications | / 6卷
关键词
Visual search; Expectation; Instructions; Feedback; Self-fulling prophecy;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Professions such as radiology and aviation security screening that rely on visual search—the act of looking for targets among distractors—often cannot provide operators immediate feedback, which can create situations where performance may be largely driven by the searchers’ own expectations. For example, if searchers do not expect relatively hard-to-spot targets to be present in a given search, they may find easy-to-spot targets but systematically quit searching before finding more difficult ones. Without feedback, searchers can create self-fulfilling prophecies where they incorrectly reinforce initial biases (e.g., first assuming and then, perhaps wrongly, concluding hard-to-spot targets are rare). In the current study, two groups of searchers completed an identical visual search task but with just a single difference in their initial task instructions before the experiment started; those in the “high-expectation” condition were told that each trial could have one or two targets present (i.e., correctly implying no target-absent trials) and those in the “low-expectation” condition were told that each trial would have up to two targets (i.e., incorrectly implying there could be target-absent trials). Compared to the high-expectation group, the low-expectation group had a lower hit rate, lower false alarm rate and quit trials more quickly, consistent with a lower quitting threshold (i.e., performing less exhaustive searches) and a potentially higher target-present decision criterion. The expectation effect was present from the start and remained across the experiment—despite exposure to the same true distribution of targets, the groups’ performances remained divergent, primarily driven by the different subjective experiences caused by each groups’ self-fulfilling prophecies. The effects were limited to the single-targets trials, which provides insights into the mechanisms affected by the initial expectations set by the instructions. In sum, initial expectations can have dramatic influences—searchers who do not expect to find a target, are less likely to find a target as they are more likely to quit searching earlier.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 150 条
[1]  
Adamo SH(2013)Self-induced attentional blink: A cause of errors in multiple-target search Psychological Science 24 2569-2574
[2]  
Cain MS(2019)How to correctly put the “subsequent” in subsequent search miss errors Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 81 2648-2657
[3]  
Mitroff SR(2020)A novel, unbiased approach to evaluating subsequent search misses in dual target visual search Attention Perception & Psychophysics 82 3357-3373
[4]  
Adamo SH(1990)Satisfaction of search in diagnostic radiology Investigative Radiology 25 133-140
[5]  
Cox PH(2015)Examining perceptual and conceptual set biases in multiple-target visual search Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 77 844-855
[6]  
Kravitz DJ(2013)Assessing visual search performance differences between Transportation Security Administration Officers and nonprofessional visual searchers Visual Cognition 21 330-352
[7]  
Mitroff SR(2015)Differences in multiple-target visual search performance between non-professional and professional searchers due to decision-making criteria British Journal of Psychology 106 551-563
[8]  
Becker MW(2009)Stable individual differences in search strategy?: The effect of task demands and motivational factors on scanning strategy in visual search Journal of Vision 9 7-7
[9]  
Anderson K(2012)A Bayesian optimal foraging model of human visual search Psychological Science 23 1047-1054
[10]  
Brascamp JW(2012)Use of clinical history affects accuracy of interpretive performance of screening mammography Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 65 219-230