{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02068126520681265, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010948905109489052, 'mean_word_length': 5.3307692307692305, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An extension to the constructivist coding hypothesis as a learning model for selective feedback when the base rate is high.

Elwin, Juslin, Olsson, and Enkvist (2007) and Henriksson, Elwin, and Juslin (2010) offered the constructivist coding hypothesis to describe how people code the outcomes of their decisions when availability of feedback is conditional on the decision. They provided empirical evidence only for the .5 base rate condition. This commentary argues that the constructivist coding hypothesis imposes an ever-declining selection rate and overestimates base rate bias for high base rate conditions. We provide support based on a simulation model of learning under selective feedback with different base rates. Then we discuss possible extensions to constructivist coding that can help overcome the problem.