skills, habit and expertise Flashcards
1
Q
what is expertise?
A
- very good at something
- could be the best at the skill
–> at least very good - requires practice
2
Q
practice
A
- can lead to expertise
- repeatedly doing a skill
- get better at something
3
Q
what is automaticity?
A
- refers to rather specific properties of performance
- tasks that can be performed quickly, effortlessly, and relatively autonomously are thought to be automatic
- automaticity refers to more specific properties of performance than skill
–> but closely related to skill in that it is an important component of skill
4
Q
what is a skill?
A
- more general ability to complete a task
5
Q
types of tasks used to measure autonomic processing
A
conflict tasks:
- Stroop task
- Flanker task
–> respond to central arrow
- Simon task
–> push the named button
- Go/No-Go task
6
Q
real life conflict tasks
A
- Norman Doors:
–> doors with handles
–> but they are ‘push to open’ doors
–> does against instinct to pull the doors - signs:
–> can say conflicting things
–> colour of words different to the colour of the ink - marketing
–> using darker colour for ‘day’ and lighter colour for ‘night’ - hotel door keys
–> need to put it down but a the image points up
7
Q
what do results of the Stroop task mean?
A
- interference is the difference between the RTs to congruent and incongruent conditions
- slower RTs to incongruent information than congruent information when naming the ink colour (but not when reading the word) suggests that automaticity of word reading interferes with the processing of the ink colour
8
Q
how can we manipulate the Stroop task to test the nature of automaticity?
A
- how do response factors affect automaticity?
- do automatic processes operate independent of attention?
- are automatic processes just faster?
- can anything become automatic?
9
Q
traditional Stroop task
A
- there is typically a verbal based response to the stimuli
–> oral response or respond manually to visual written word - this is regardless of whether the task is to name the colour of the ink (visual sensory task/stimuli ) or to read the word (visual verbal task)
10
Q
Durgin (2000) argument about traditional Stroop task
A
- argues that the match between the verbal stimuli of the written word and the verbal-based response when asked to read the word requires less processing than when asked to name the ink colour (mismatched S_R)
- when naming the ink colour the target information of ink colour must be translated into the appropriate verbal classification modality
–> whereas the non target (distractor) information of the actual word is already in the verbal modality
11
Q
Translation account of the Stroop interference
A
- when reading the word
–> target stimulus (red) is verbal
–> response is verbal (say red)
–> similarity in S and R
–> no translation - when asked to name ink colour
–> target is sensory visual (red)
–> response is verbal (say blue)
–> mismatch between S and R
–> translation is needed
12
Q
how did Durgin (2000) fix translation problem?
A
- changed the format of the response participants needed to respond to Stroop stimuli
- used a computer mouse to point to coloured patches
13
Q
tasks in Durgin (2000)
A
- to point to the ink patch that matched the meaning of the word (word reading)
- to point to the ink patch that matched the colour of the ink the word was written in
- there were only neutral conditions
–> for the word task the colour word was in grey ink
–> for the ink naming task furniture words were presented in coloured ink - and incongruent conditions
- no congruent conditions
14
Q
results of Durgin (2000)
A
- colour interfered with word-naming/reading (longer RTs and more errors) when asked to point to the colour patch consistent with the word meaning than the neutral condition
- this was not observed on the point to the colour patch that matched the ink
–> a “reverse Stroop effect”
15
Q
conclusions from Durgin (2000)
A
- findings were against automaticity theory as an explanation for interference on the Stroop task as pointing to the ink is not automatic
–> but that is assuming that automaticity is based on the act of word reading as being the fundamental aspect of automatic process - an alternative explanation for the findings is that stimulus response compatibility is actually key to automaticity
–> it is not just a sensory process, but about the associations
between stimulus and response - when the S_R formats are similar then this supports automaticity
16
Q
attentional manipulations
A
- in the traditional Stroop task the argument that automaticity of word reading can explain the Stroop effect (interference) has been based on participants paying attention to whole words
- these words are thought to activate semantic and lexical processing
- so attention is paid across the whole word
- what happens when participants are asked to pay attention to a specific letter in the word?
17
Q
Besner study 1
A
- directed attention to a single letter in the word as that letter was the only part of the word in a coloured ink
- Results:
–> Stroop effect eliminated when only one letter was coloured –> suggesting that paying attention to part of the word did not lead to automatic processing of the word at a semantic level
18
Q
Besner study 2
A
- attention was directed to a single letter in the word by having an arrow point to the target letter
- results:
-> the Stroop effect was reduced or eliminated by cueing one letter of a coloured word
19
Q
conclusion form Besner
A
- automaticity of word reading is not independent of all
other cognitive processes - as where you
pay attention and how you pay attention seems
to affect whether word reading appears to be
automatic
20
Q
stimulus onset asynchrony
A
- speed processing account:
–> simply that words are processed more quickly than ink colour - in the traditional Stroop task the word is presented at the same time as the ink: indeed the word is written in the colour of the ink.
- what happens if the presentation of the word and the ink colour is staggered (asynchrony)?
21
Q
Glaser and Glser (1982) - stimulus onset asynchrony manipulations
A
- presented the colour and word components of Stroop stimuli at different times
–> a stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) manipulation - results:
–> for naming the ink (colour naming) you see the Stroop effect regardless of when the word stimuli was presented
–> until word is presented at 300 and 400 ms after the ink
(300 and 400 ms the irrelevant stimulus [word] is presented too late to interfere with processing of ink naming) - no amount of head start for colour information produced interference on word reading
22
Q
conclusion from Glaser and Glaser (1982)
A
- speed of word processing being faster than ink processing cannot explain these findings
- there is more to automaticity than just speed of processing
23
Q
is automaticity all or nothing?
A
- there is a debate as to whether a process is either automatic or not (all or nothing) or whether automaticity can gradually develop (dimensional)
24
Q
can anything become automatic?
A
- Stroop Effect is often explained by the fact that word reading is automatic so interferes with naming the ink
- One question that is raised is that with practice can anything become automatic?
25
Q
MacLeod and Dunbar (1988)
A
- trained participants to name novel shapes with colour words
- there were 4 phases:
1. first was baseline naming of the four familiar colours
2. second was training in naming the four novel shapes by using the names of the same four colours
3. third was naming the colours when they appeared as shapes
4. forth was to name the shapes when they appeared in colour - there were three experiments
–> each experiment differed in the amount of training given 2 , 5 or 20 hours
26
Q
MacLeod and Dunbar (1988) - results
A
- initially (2 hours):
–> colours interfere with naming shapes (naming the colour is the more dominant, automatic process) - intermediately (5 hours):
–> colours interfere with naming shapes and vice versa - after extensive training (20 hours):
–> shapes interfere with naming colours (naming the shape is now the more dominant, automatic process)
27
Q
MacLeod and Dunbar (1988) - conclusions
A
- a process is not either (completely) automatic or controlled but you can make something automatic with practice
- suggesting that automaticity is dimensional
–> “continuum of automaticity” - suggesting that perhaps most things may have the potential to become automatic with enough practice
- supports continuum of automaticity over relative speed of processing hypothesis
28
Q
skills or habits?
A
- there is a debate as to whether:
–> skills are habits
–> habits are skills
–> whether the two are different
29
Q
features of habits
A
- over learnt stimulus-response pairs
- triggered by the environment
- rapid
- stereotyped
- inflexible
- ballistic
–> once you start its hard to stop
30
Q
Bebko et al (jugglers)
A
- jugglers and novices
- juggling under different conditions (weight of balls, trajectory of balls) was still superior in jugglers than non-jugglers (novices)
- skill is maintained so skill has flexibility
31
Q
skills vs habit
A
- skills that are more habit like
–> highly practiced
–> fast
–> low attention demands - skills that are less habit like
–> sequenced
–> flexible
–> intended
32
Q
defining a skill
A
hallmark of skill is the rich interplay between automatic and cognitive control processes and this is in contrast to habit
33
Q
habits vs skill (psychologists’ view)
A
- commonly characterize habitual actions as automatic, inflexible, and stimulus-driven
- insist that although there are elements of automaticity in skill, skilled actions remain goal-directed and highly flexible
34
Q
2 key features of a skill
A
- flexible
- goal-driven
35
Q
controlled & automatic processing (typing example)
A
- typing is a learnt process and skilled typists need to be accurate and fast
–> involves both automatic and controlled processing - we need to interpret words from info presented and then matched to output
–> can measure errors via mismatch between intended output and actual output - skilled copy typing depends on translation of words into motor commands for keystrokes
–> and relatively automatic timing and execution of keystrokes - errors may be observed through kinesthetic feedback from keystrokes
36
Q
Logan and Crump (2010) - typing task
A
- told to type a word
- typed the word
- given feedback
- 4 conditions:
1. told their actual feedback (correct)
2. told their actual feedback (incorrect)
3. sometimes told they typed wrong when they typed right
4. sometimes told they typed right when they typed wrong (corrected)
37
Q
two measures to assess performance in type task
A
- Self-report (subjective perception of performance)
–> are they aware of their actual performance or are they influenced by feedback?
–> false reports of errors or corrected errors ? - Inter-key interval (typing speed as a measure of motor response)
–> hitting the keys (typing) is automatic so motor response is unlikely to be conscious
–> is the speed of typing influenced by errors?
38
Q
self report results - correct
A
typists were correctly able to state that they had made a correct entry (feedback also stated the entry was correct)
39
Q
self report results - error
A
most typists were aware that they had made an error (the feedback also stated error)
40
Q
self report results - inserted error
A
- most typists didn’t notice the error was inserted
–> they believed that they had typed incorrectly when the feedback falsely stated that they had made an error - an “illusion of authorship”:
–> participants believed they had made errors they hadn’t
41
Q
self report results - corrected error
A
- most typists didn’t notice the error correction spontaneously
- an “illusion of authorship”:
–> participants believed they had not made errors when in fact they had
42
Q
inter key interval results
A
- participants slowed when they made a real error (even if they weren’t told about it)
- didn’t slow when they were told (incorrectly) that they had errored
- disconnect between keystroke behaviour and self-report
–> no illusion of authorship in keystroke behaviour
43
Q
meaning behind Logan and Crump (2010)
A
- typing skills are controlled by hierarchical loops
- outer loop = language comprehension & generation
–> decides on the words to type - inner loop= translates words into finger movements
- each loop is sensitive to different forms of feedback
–> outer loop = visual feedback from screen
–> inner loop = finger/keyboard interactions
44
Q
hierarchical control
A
- frees attention to regulate the hard parts
- complex behaviours are neither entirely automatic or controlled
–> mix of both
45
Q
3 explanations of the barriers to performance of skill
A
- arousal
- choking
- levels of attention
46
Q
Yerkes-Dodson Law (arousal)
A
- there is an optimum level of performance and arousal
- we perform better with more arousal up to a point
- past this point, more arousal leads to worse performance
- the inverted U hypothesis
47
Q
practice and the Yerkes-Dodson law (arousal)
A
- can deal with higher levels of arousal with practice
- the optimum level of arousal increases
48
Q
choking - barrier to performance
A
- choking under pressure (pressure to perform at high level) prompts attention to step by step elements of a well learned skill
- leads to errors and slowing
49
Q
Beilock et al. (2002b) - choking and dribbling
A
- either just do the dribbling task
- or do a dribbling task whilst listening to an audio stimulus and had to pay attention
- experts:
–> best under dual-task conditions, but only right footed (their dominant foot)
–> in right foot condition = attentional focus on dribbling hinders performance, distraction improves performance - novices:
–> always best under ‘skill focused’ conditions
–> distraction hinders performance
–> do better when only focusing on the skill
50
Q
levels of attention - barrier to performance
A
- where you focus attention is important:
–> misallocation of attention can disrupt performance - when typists are told to type with only one hand, their inner loop is focused
–> performance declines
51
Q
ironic processing
A
- one way of accounting for disruption in processing is ironic processing
–> thinking hard interferes with the process of doing it
–> it hinders performance - when mental capacity is reduced (stress, cognitive load, distraction) it can lead to opposite to intended goal
- the harder you try the more errors you make
52
Q
Ericsson’s theory of deliberate practice
A
- with deliberate practice, improvement still occurs but slows eventually
–> after many years - underpins expertise
53
Q
ten thousand hours rule
A
- to become an expert, you need have 10,000 hours of practise
54
Q
features of deliberate practice
A
- effortful, extensive practice
- breaks skill into components
- focus on reducing errors
- use of targets (which evolve as skill increases)
- individually tailored training (i.e. coaching)
55
Q
feedback about practice from elite violinists
A
- 4 to 5 hours of practice a day
- naps
- obtained feedback (coaching)
- trained the difficult stuff
56
Q
training errors and performance
A
- skaters who went on to win gold made more training errors than those who went on to win silver or bronze
- because they practiced beyond their current limit
–> you identify errors, fix them and then improve
–> you focus on the hard bit (so naturally you make more errors)
–> not the easy bits you know you can do
57
Q
is 10,000 hours really ideal?
A
- Ericsson never claimed practice alone was enough
–> conceded that innate height and environmental factors such as support are influential - but he has claimed deliberate practice is the main influence on the development of expertise
58
Q
challenging deliberate practice and 10,000 hours (Dewar, 2014)
A
- evidence from around the world
- even with deliberate practice some people do not reach expertise
- those who are are more advantaged at the start reach expertise more/sooner/easier regardless of practise
- baseline levels of performance matter
59
Q
Macnamara & Maitra (2019)
A
- practice alone does not make an expert
–> those who are better do begin with do better
–> those with more practice were not necessarily better - replication of Ericsson’s study but was was double blind assessment not observational
- practice alone is more important than coaching
60
Q
summary
A
- Stroop task is just one example of a conflict task
–> by testing variations, we can understand automaticity - skill requires coordinating automatic and controlled processing
- even if you have skill, other factors can hinder performance
- deliberate practice may not be as important as Ericsson’s has claimed
