Scholarlink

<p>This paper examines the trade-off between remembering and online evaluation in retrospective judgments. In two experiments, we compared conditions where participants performed only one task (evaluation or recall) versus both tasks, with task expectancy manipulated through pre-cueing or post-cueing. Participants (<i>N</i>=139 and <i>N</i>=262) viewed sequences of numbers representing monetary values and were asked to either recall the numbers or evaluate the sequence through willingness-to-pay judgments. Results showed that when both tasks were potential (Experiment <InternalRef RefID="Sec1">1</InternalRef>) or actual (Experiment <InternalRef RefID="Sec10">2</InternalRef>) candidates to be cued, one or the other task showed a decrement in performance, indicative of some dual-task cost. Strikingly, simulations revealed that participants would have performed better had they focused solely on memory encoding during presentation rather than attempting dual-task processing. These findings suggest that people do not optimally allocate cognitive resources between competing processes during retrospective evaluation, and may attempt to deploy multiple specialized strategies even where a memory-based strategy would be effective overall.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Trade-offs between remembering and online evaluation in retrospective evaluation

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月31日

查看全文
  • Alice Mason,
  • Geoff Ward,
  • Gordon D. A. Brown,
  • Simon Farrell

摘要

This paper examines the trade-off between remembering and online evaluation in retrospective judgments. In two experiments, we compared conditions where participants performed only one task (evaluation or recall) versus both tasks, with task expectancy manipulated through pre-cueing or post-cueing. Participants (N=139 and N=262) viewed sequences of numbers representing monetary values and were asked to either recall the numbers or evaluate the sequence through willingness-to-pay judgments. Results showed that when both tasks were potential (Experiment 1) or actual (Experiment 2) candidates to be cued, one or the other task showed a decrement in performance, indicative of some dual-task cost. Strikingly, simulations revealed that participants would have performed better had they focused solely on memory encoding during presentation rather than attempting dual-task processing. These findings suggest that people do not optimally allocate cognitive resources between competing processes during retrospective evaluation, and may attempt to deploy multiple specialized strategies even where a memory-based strategy would be effective overall.