亲社会支出对主观幸福感的影响及其作用机制

亲社会支出是指把钱以送礼或慈善捐款的形式花在别人身上, 而不是自己身上。它不仅可以给接受者带来好处, 还可以对给予者的幸福产生积极影响。亲社会支出对幸福感的影响主要体现在亲社会对象及影响效果两个方面, 其边界条件包括了外部与内部因素。通过自我决定理论、社会规范理论、进化理论及社会交换理论, 可以进一步解释亲社会支出影响主观幸福感的内在机制。未来研究需要检验亲社会支出与幸福感之间的边界条件、探究亲社会支出的长期积极效应及提高亲社会支出研究的生态效度。     

Happiness Runs in a Circular Motion: Evidence for a Positive Feedback Loop between Prosocial Spending and Happiness

We examine whether a positive feedback loop exists between spending money on others (i.e. prosocial spending) and happiness. Participants recalled a previous purchase made for either themselves or someone else and then reported their happiness. Afterward, participants chose whether to spend a monetary windfall on themselves or someone else. Participants assigned to recall a purchase made for someone else reported feeling significantly happier immediately after this recollection; most importantly, the happier participants felt, the more likely they were to choose to spend a windfall on someone else in the near future. Thus, by providing initial evidence for a positive feedback loop between prosocial spending and well-being, these data offer one potential path to sustainable happiness: prosocial spending increases happiness which in turn encourages prosocial spending.     

National Survey of Psychologists' Test Feedback Training,Supervision, and Practice: A Mixed Methods Study

In this empirical, mixed methods study, we explored test feedback training, supervision, and practice among psychologists, focusing specifically on how feedback is provided to clients and whether feedback skills are taught in graduate programs. Based on a 48.5% return rate, this national survey of clinical, counseling, and school psychologists' suggests psychologists provide test feedback to clients but inconsistently. Most respondents, 91.7%, indicated they give verbal feedback at least some of the time, whereas 35% do so every time. However, 2.8% indicated they never give feedback. A negative correlation exists for clinical psychologists between years since graduation and providing verbal feedback. Of particular interest, approximately one third of respondents indicated predoctoral coursework, practica, and internship were of little-to-no help in preparing them to provide feedback. Also, feedback training in predoctoral coursework, practica, and internship was not correlated to actually providing feedback. There was, however, a significant correlation between postdoctoral training and providing feedback. Consistent with existing ethical exceptions, the most frequent reason for not providing feedback was using assessments in forensic settings. Individuals who indicated their training was not helpful cited “trial and error” and self-instruction as ways in which they learned feedback skills. We discuss implications and suggestions for feedback training, research, and practice.     

Meta-analysis of the reduced relative feedback frequency effect on motor learning and performance

A fundamental motor learning principle conveyed in textbooks is that augmented terminal feedback frequency differentially affects motor learning and performance. The guidance hypothesis predicts that relative to a reduced frequency of feedback, providing learners with feedback following every practice trial enhances practice performance but degrades subsequent motor learning. This change in effectiveness for each relative feedback frequency is called a reversal effect, and because it is thought that practice variables can have distinct impacts on learning and performance, delayed retention tests are considered the gold standard in motor learning research. The objectives of this meta-analysis were to a) synthesize the available evidence regarding feedback frequency, performance, and motor learning to test whether there are significant changes in effectiveness from acquisition and immediate retention to delayed retention, b) evaluate potential moderators of these effects, and c) investigate the potential influence of publication bias on this literature. We screened 1662 articles found in PubMed and PsycINFO databases as well as with reference tracing and a targeted author search. A final sample of 61 eligible papers were included in the primary analysis (k = 75, N = 2228). Results revealed substantial heterogeneity but no significant moderators, high levels of uncertainty, and no significant effect of reduced feedback frequency at any time point. Further, multilevel analyses revealed no evidence of a significant change in effect from acquisition or immediate retention to delayed retention. Z-curve analysis suggested the included studies were severely underpowered. These results suggest that robust evidence regarding feedback frequency and motor learning is lacking.     

Delaying feedback promotes transfer of knowledge despite student preferences to receive feedback immediately

Educators and researchers who study human learning often assume that feedback is most effective when given immediately. However, a growing body of research has challenged this assumption by demonstrating that delaying feedback can facilitate learning. Advocates for immediate feedback have questioned the generalizability of this finding, suggesting that such effects only occur in highly controlled laboratory settings. We report a pair of experiments in which the timing of feedback was manipulated in an upper-level college engineering course. Students practiced applying their knowledge of complex engineering concepts on weekly homework assignments, and then received feedback either immediately after the assignment deadline or 1 week later. When students received delayed feedback, they performed better on subsequent course exams that contained new problems about the same concepts. Although delayed feedback produced superior transfer of knowledge, students reported that they benefited most from immediate feedback, revealing a metacognitive disconnect between actual and perceived effectiveness.     

Individual differences in learning to perceive length by dynamic touch: Evidence for variation in perceptual learning capacities

Recent studies of perceptual learning have explored and commented on variation in learning trajectories. Although several factors have been suggested to account for this variation, thus far the idea that humans vary in their perceptual learning capacities has received scant attention. In the present experiment, we aimed at providing a detailed picture of the variation in this capacity by investigating the perceptual learning trajectories of a considerable number of participants. The learning process was studied using the paradigm of length perception by dynamic touch. The results showed that there are substantial individual differences in the way perceivers respond to feedback. Indeed, after feedback, the participants' perceptual performances diverged. We conclude that humans vary in their perceptual learning capacities. The implications of this finding for recent discussions on variation in perception are explored.     

Do consumers ever learn? Analysis of segment behavior in experimental markets

Economists argue that, despite cognitive limitations, economic agents arrive at optimal choice rules by learning. The assumption is that consumers, for example, are adaptively rational. Adaptive rationality raises a host of issues. We address three of these in the context of experimental markets: do consumers differ on the basis of learning; how do these differences, when aggregated, affect market efficiency; and how do consumers learn? Analysis of our experimental data reveals the following. First, multiple segments of consumers exist on the basis of learning. Second, the largest segment consists of subjects who do not learn despite timely feedback and motivation. Third, although some consumers do learn to make optimal choices, the effect of this segment on market efficiency is cancelled by an equal number of subjects who ‘learn' false relations. Finally, although subjects do not learn strict rationality even with experience, they are in the aggregate not so irrational as to allow highly suboptimal brands to survive. Further analysis of how consumers learn, specifically on the cues (signals) and the rules consumers employ in making choices over time leads to the following two conclusions. First, some signals make learning more easy than others: for example, providing market share information improves learning but not as much as providing quality information does. Second, people employ different rules depending upon the type of information they have. For example, consumers making decisions based only on price information are more likely to use a heuristic like ‘buy a medium‐priced product provided it has not failed in the past'. Consumers making decisions based on price and quality information may employ a heuristic such as ‘buy top quality products regardless of price'. We discuss the implications of these findings for theory and practice. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Regaining access to marginal knowledge in a classroom setting

Students learn large amounts of information, but not all of it is remembered after courses end – meaning that valuable class time is often spent reviewing background material. Crucially, laboratory research suggests different strategies will be effective when reactivating previously learned information (i.e. marginal knowledge), as opposed to learning new information. In two experiments, we evaluated whether these laboratory results translated to the classroom. Topics from prior courses were tested to document which information students could no longer retrieve. Half were assigned to a not-tested control and half to the intervention; for these topics, students answered multiple-choice questions (without feedback) that gave them the chance to recognize the information they had failed to retrieve. Weeks later, students completed a final assessment on all topics. Crucially, multiple-choice testing increased the retrieval of previously forgotten information, providing the first classroom demonstration of the reactivation of marginal knowledge.     

Judgments of learning are significantly higher following feedback on relatively good versus relatively poor trials despite no actual learning differences

Studies have consistently shown that prospective metacognitive judgments of learning are often inaccurate because humans mistakenly interpret current performance levels as valid indices of learning. These metacognitive discrepancies are strongly related to conditions of practice. Here, we examined how the type of feedback (after good versus poor trials) received during practice and awareness (aware versus unaware) of this manipulation affected judgments of learning and actual learning. After each six-trial block, participants received feedback on their three best trials or three worst trials and half of the participants were made explicitly aware of the type of feedback they received while the other half were unaware. Judgments of learning were made at the end of each six-trial block and before the 24-h retention test. Results indicated no motor performance differences between groups in practice or retention; however, receiving feedback on relatively good compared to relatively poor trials resulted in significantly higher judgments of learning in practice and retention, irrespective of awareness. These results suggest that KR on relatively good versus relatively poor trials can have dissociable effects on judgments of learning in the absence of actual learning differences, even when participants are made aware of their feedback manipulation.     

The effects of positive versus negative feedback on information-integration category learning

A number of studies have shown that in category learning, providing feedback about errors allows faster learning than providing feedback about correct responses. However, these previous studies used explicit, rule-based tasks in which the category structures could be separated by a simple rule that was easily verbalized. Here, the results of the first experiment known to compare the efficacy of positive versus negative feedback during information-integration category learning are reported. Information-integration tasks require participants to integrate perceptual information from incommensurable dimensions, and evidence suggests that optimal responding recruits procedural learning. The results show that although nearly all of the full-feedback control participants demonstrated information-integration learning, participants receiving either positive-only or negative-only feedback generally used explicit, rule-based strategies. It thus appears that, unlike rule-based learning, consistent information-integration learning requires full feedback. The theoretical implications of these findings for current models of information-integration learning are discussed.     

Why do the effects of delaying reinforcement in animals and delaying feedback in humans differ? A working-memory analysis

Animal research has shown that reinforcement is substantially less effective when it is delayed, but in studies of human motor learning delays in providing feedback typically have much less effect. One possible explanation is that in human research participants know the response to be learned and can thus focus on it during the delay; that is not the case in experiments on animals. We tested this hypothesis using a task in which participants had minimal information on what movement was correct and found that, as in animal experiments, participants learned only when feedback was immediate. A second experiment confirmed that the effects of the delay depended on how many responses had to be held in working memory: the greater the memory load, the poorer the learning. The results point to the importance of activity during a delay on learning; implications for the teaching of motor skills are discussed.     

Why do the effects of delaying reinforcement in animals and delaying feedback in humans differ? A working-memory analysis

Animal research has shown that reinforcement is substantially less effective when it is delayed, but in studies of human motor learning delays in providing feedback typically have much less effect. One possible explanation is that in human research participants know the response to be learned and can thus focus on it during the delay; that is not the case in experiments on animals. We tested this hypothesis using a task in which participants had minimal information on what movement was correct and found that, as in animal experiments, participants learned only when feedback was immediate. A second experiment confirmed that the effects of the delay depended on how many responses had to be held in working memory: the greater the memory load, the poorer the learning. The results point to the importance of activity during a delay on learning; implications for the teaching of motor skills are discussed.     

Social feedback interferes with implicit rule learning: Evidence from event-related brain potentials

The human brain can learn contingencies built into stimulus sequences unconsciously. The quality of such implicit learning has been connected to stimulus social relevance, but results so far are inconsistent. We engaged participants in an implicit-intentional learning task in which they learned to discriminate between legal and illegal card triads on the sole basis of feedback provided within a staircase procedure. Half of the participants received feedback from pictures of faces with a happy or sad expression (social group) and the other half based on traffic light icons (symbolic group). We hypothesised that feedback from faces would have a greater impact on learning than that from traffic lights. Although performance during learning did not differ between groups, the feedback error-related negativity (fERN) was delayed by ~20 ms for social relative to symbolic feedback, and the P3b modulation elicited by infrequent legal card triads within a stream of illegal ones during the test phase was significantly larger in the symbolic than the social feedback group. Furthermore, the P3b mean amplitude recorded at test negatively correlated with the latency of the fERN recorded during learning. These results counterintuitively suggest that, relative to symbolic feedback, socially salient feedback interferes with implicit learning.     

The costs of optimism and the benefits of pessimism

Research suggests that optimism feels good. However, does it always feel good? We suggest that the benefits (and costs) of optimism and pessimism depend on their timing. A study of exam score estimates revealed that, after controlling for actual exam performance, optimistic expectations are unrelated to how people feel immediately before feedback, in contrast to the common wisdom that optimism "feels good." Furthermore, optimism has costs after feedback-participants who predicted higher scores before feedback felt worse after learning their scores. Finally, people seem to be aware of the potential costs of optimism-participants who predicted higher scores before feedback also anticipated experiencing greater disappointment should they perform poorly. These findings suggest that people may proactively manage their expectations to avoid the costs of optimism.     

Pilot Study of a Personalized Feedback Intervention for Problem Gamblers

A pilot study was conducted of a personalized feedback intervention for problem gamblers. Respondents (N = 61) were recruited from an ongoing gambling research study to take part in another study to help us “develop and evaluate self-help materials for gamblers.” Respondents were randomly assigned to receive a personalized feedback summary or to a waiting list control. At 3-month follow-up (80.3% follow-up rate, N = 49), after controlling for baseline demographic characteristics and gambling severity, respondents in the feedback condition displayed some evidence that they were spending less money on gambling than those in the control condition. Further, ratings of the usefulness of the feedback summary were positive and most recipients (96%) recommended that they be made available to other gamblers interested in evaluating or modifying their gambling. Given these promising pilot results, a full-scale evaluation of these personalized feedback materials would appear justified. An online version of the intervention is now also available at www.CheckYourGambling.net.     

Learning a theory of causality

The very early appearance of abstract knowledge is often taken as evidence for innateness. We explore the relative learning speeds of abstract and specific knowledge within a Bayesian framework and the role for innate structure. We focus on knowledge about causality, seen as a domain-general intuitive theory, and ask whether this knowledge can be learned from co-occurrence of events. We begin by phrasing the causal Bayes nets theory of causality and a range of alternatives in a logical language for relational theories. This allows us to explore simultaneous inductive learning of an abstract theory of causality and a causal model for each of several causal systems. We find that the correct theory of causality can be learned relatively quickly, often becoming available before specific causal theories have been learned--an effect we term the blessing of abstraction. We then explore the effect of providing a variety of auxiliary evidence and find that a collection of simple perceptual input analyzers can help to bootstrap abstract knowledge. Together, these results suggest that the most efficient route to causal knowledge may be to build in not an abstract notion of causality but a powerful inductive learning mechanism and a variety of perceptual supports. While these results are purely computational, they have implications for cognitive development, which we explore in the conclusion.     

Sensory feedback in the learning of a novel motor task

The role of different forms of feedback is examined in learning a novel motor task. Five groups of ten subjects had to learn the voluntary control of the abduction of the big toe, each under a different feedback condition (proprioceptive feedback, visual feedback, EMG feedback, tactile feedback, force feedback). The task was selected for two reasons. First, in most motor learning studies subjects have to perform simple movements which present hardly any learning problem. Second, studying the learning of a new movement an provide useful information for neuromuscular reeducation, where patients often also have to learn movements for which no control strategy exists. The results show that artificial sensory feedback (EMG feedback, force feedback) is more powerful than "natural" (proprioceptive, visual, and tactile) feedback. The implications of these results for neuromuscular reeducation are discussed.     

Sensory Feedback in the Learning of a Novel Motor Task

The role of different forms of feedback is examined in learning a novel motor task. Five groups of ten subjects had to learn the voluntary control of the abduction of the big toe, each under a different feedback condition (proprioceptive feedback, visual feedback, EMG feedback, tactile feedback, force feedback). The task was selected for two reasons. First, in most motor learning studies subjects have to perform simple movements which present hardly any learning problem. Second, studying the learning of a new movement can provide useful information for neuromuscular reeducation, where patients often also have to learn movements for which no control strategy exists. The results show that artificial sensory feedback (EMG feedback, force feedback) is more powerful than “natural” (proprioceptive, visual, and tactile) feedback. The implications of these results for neuromuscular reeducation are discussed.     

Error discounting in probabilistic category learning

The assumption in some current theories of probabilistic categorization is that people gradually attenuate their learning in response to unavoidable error. However, existing evidence for this error discounting is sparse and open to alternative interpretations. We report 2 probabilistic-categorization experiments in which we investigated error discounting by shifting feedback probabilities to new values after different amounts of training. In both experiments, responding gradually became less responsive to errors, and learning was slowed for some time after the feedback shift. Both results were indicative of error discounting. Quantitative modeling of the data revealed that adding a mechanism for error discounting significantly improved the fits of an exemplar-based and a rule-based associative learning model, as well as of a recency-based model of categorization. We conclude that error discounting is an important component of probabilistic learning.     

Adding the goal to learn strengthens learning in an unintentional learning task

Previous research has demonstrated that contingency learning can take place in the absence of the intention to learn. For instance, in the color-word contingency learning task, each distracting word is presented most often in a given target color (e.g., "month" in red and "plate" in green), and less often in the other colors. Participants respond more quickly and accurately when the word is presented in the expected rather than an unexpected color, even though there is no reason why they would have the intention to learn the contingencies between the words and the colors. It remains to be determined, however, whether learning in such situations would benefit or suffer from adding the goal to learn contingencies. In the reported experiment, half of the participants were informed that each word was presented most often in a certain color, and they were instructed to try to learn these contingencies. The other half of the participants were not informed that contingencies would be present. The participants given the learning goal produced a larger response time contingency effect than did the control participants. In contrast to some results from other learning paradigms, these results suggest that intentional learning adds to, rather than interferes with, unintentional learning, and we propose an explanation for some of the conflicting results.