Confidence in Forced-Choice Recognition: What Underlies the Ratings?
Two-alternative forced-choice recognition tests are commonly used to assess recognition accuracy that is uncontaminated by changes in bias. In such tests, participants are asked to endorse the studied item out of 2 presented alternatives. Participants may be further asked to provide confidence judgm...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition memory, and cognition, 2017-04, Vol.43 (4), p.552-564 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 564 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 552 |
| container_title | Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition |
| container_volume | 43 |
| creator | Zawadzka, Katarzyna Higham, Philip A Hanczakowski, Maciej |
| description | Two-alternative forced-choice recognition tests are commonly used to assess recognition accuracy that is uncontaminated by changes in bias. In such tests, participants are asked to endorse the studied item out of 2 presented alternatives. Participants may be further asked to provide confidence judgments for their recognition decisions. It is often assumed that both recognition decisions and confidence judgments in 2-alternative forced-choice recognition tests depend on participants' assessments of a difference in strength of memory evidence supporting the 2 alternatives-the relative account. In the present study we focus on the basis of confidence judgments and we assess the relative account of confidence against the absolute account of confidence, by which in assigning confidence participants consider only strength of memory evidence supporting the chosen alternative. The results of the study show that confidence in 2-alternative forced-choice recognition decisions is higher when memory evidence is stronger for the chosen alternative and also when memory evidence is stronger for the unchosen alternative. These patterns of results are consistent with the absolute account of confidence in 2-alternative forced-choice recognition but they are inconsistent with the relative account. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1037/xlm0000321 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1859734101</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1136027</ericid><sourcerecordid>4321778581</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a437t-9f146973e96876d6f7ec528683833d9af4385d0a50561c9b57123dae3d183bd53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90cFrFDEUBvAgil2rF-_KgBdpGU3mJZPEi8i2tUpBEIvHkE3edFNmkzWZgfa_N-22FTw0l0C-Hy8hHyGvGf3AKMiPV-OG1gUde0IWTINuWafEU7KgnVStBA175EUpl_RWqedkr5O9EpTpBTlapjgEj9FhE2JzkrJD3y7XKdSDn-jSRQxTSPFT83ttp-Y8esxjwNJM65rbKcSL8vkleTbYseCru32fnJ8c_1qetmc_vn5bfjlrLQc5tXpgvNcSUPdK9r4fJDrRqV6BAvDaDhyU8NQKKnrm9EpI1oG3CJ4pWHkB--T9bu42pz8zlslsQnE4jjZimothStTxnFFW6bv_6GWac6yvq0opLUBy-rjquOCKMlnVwU65nErJOJhtDhubrw2j5qYB86-Bit_ejZxXG_QP9P7LK3izA5iDe4iPvzMGfS2s5oe73G6t2ZZrZ_MU3IjFzTljnG4uMxwMN0J08BdldpYU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1824548017</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Confidence in Forced-Choice Recognition: What Underlies the Ratings?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES</source><creator>Zawadzka, Katarzyna ; Higham, Philip A ; Hanczakowski, Maciej</creator><contributor>Greene, Robert L</contributor><creatorcontrib>Zawadzka, Katarzyna ; Higham, Philip A ; Hanczakowski, Maciej ; Greene, Robert L</creatorcontrib><description>Two-alternative forced-choice recognition tests are commonly used to assess recognition accuracy that is uncontaminated by changes in bias. In such tests, participants are asked to endorse the studied item out of 2 presented alternatives. Participants may be further asked to provide confidence judgments for their recognition decisions. It is often assumed that both recognition decisions and confidence judgments in 2-alternative forced-choice recognition tests depend on participants' assessments of a difference in strength of memory evidence supporting the 2 alternatives-the relative account. In the present study we focus on the basis of confidence judgments and we assess the relative account of confidence against the absolute account of confidence, by which in assigning confidence participants consider only strength of memory evidence supporting the chosen alternative. The results of the study show that confidence in 2-alternative forced-choice recognition decisions is higher when memory evidence is stronger for the chosen alternative and also when memory evidence is stronger for the unchosen alternative. These patterns of results are consistent with the absolute account of confidence in 2-alternative forced-choice recognition but they are inconsistent with the relative account.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0278-7393</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-1285</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000321</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27685019</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Psychological Association</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Animals ; Choice Behavior - physiology ; Coercion ; Confidence Testing ; Decision making ; Evidence ; Experimental psychology ; Female ; Forced Choice (Testing Method) ; Foreign Countries ; Human ; Humans ; Judgment ; Male ; Measurement Techniques ; Memory ; Reaction Time - physiology ; Recognition ; Recognition (Learning) ; Recognition (Psychology) ; Recognition (Psychology) - physiology ; Reproducibility of Results ; Self-Confidence ; Students ; Undergraduate Students ; Universities ; Verbal Learning ; Vocabulary</subject><ispartof>Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 2017-04, Vol.43 (4), p.552-564</ispartof><rights>2016 American Psychological Association</rights><rights>(c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).</rights><rights>2017, American Psychological Association</rights><rights>Copyright American Psychological Association Apr 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a437t-9f146973e96876d6f7ec528683833d9af4385d0a50561c9b57123dae3d183bd53</citedby><orcidid>0000-0003-0214-1184 ; 0000-0001-8980-4918</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1136027$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27685019$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Greene, Robert L</contributor><creatorcontrib>Zawadzka, Katarzyna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Higham, Philip A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hanczakowski, Maciej</creatorcontrib><title>Confidence in Forced-Choice Recognition: What Underlies the Ratings?</title><title>Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition</title><addtitle>J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn</addtitle><description>Two-alternative forced-choice recognition tests are commonly used to assess recognition accuracy that is uncontaminated by changes in bias. In such tests, participants are asked to endorse the studied item out of 2 presented alternatives. Participants may be further asked to provide confidence judgments for their recognition decisions. It is often assumed that both recognition decisions and confidence judgments in 2-alternative forced-choice recognition tests depend on participants' assessments of a difference in strength of memory evidence supporting the 2 alternatives-the relative account. In the present study we focus on the basis of confidence judgments and we assess the relative account of confidence against the absolute account of confidence, by which in assigning confidence participants consider only strength of memory evidence supporting the chosen alternative. The results of the study show that confidence in 2-alternative forced-choice recognition decisions is higher when memory evidence is stronger for the chosen alternative and also when memory evidence is stronger for the unchosen alternative. These patterns of results are consistent with the absolute account of confidence in 2-alternative forced-choice recognition but they are inconsistent with the relative account.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Choice Behavior - physiology</subject><subject>Coercion</subject><subject>Confidence Testing</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Evidence</subject><subject>Experimental psychology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Forced Choice (Testing Method)</subject><subject>Foreign Countries</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Judgment</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Measurement Techniques</subject><subject>Memory</subject><subject>Reaction Time - physiology</subject><subject>Recognition</subject><subject>Recognition (Learning)</subject><subject>Recognition (Psychology)</subject><subject>Recognition (Psychology) - physiology</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Self-Confidence</subject><subject>Students</subject><subject>Undergraduate Students</subject><subject>Universities</subject><subject>Verbal Learning</subject><subject>Vocabulary</subject><issn>0278-7393</issn><issn>1939-1285</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp90cFrFDEUBvAgil2rF-_KgBdpGU3mJZPEi8i2tUpBEIvHkE3edFNmkzWZgfa_N-22FTw0l0C-Hy8hHyGvGf3AKMiPV-OG1gUde0IWTINuWafEU7KgnVStBA175EUpl_RWqedkr5O9EpTpBTlapjgEj9FhE2JzkrJD3y7XKdSDn-jSRQxTSPFT83ttp-Y8esxjwNJM65rbKcSL8vkleTbYseCru32fnJ8c_1qetmc_vn5bfjlrLQc5tXpgvNcSUPdK9r4fJDrRqV6BAvDaDhyU8NQKKnrm9EpI1oG3CJ4pWHkB--T9bu42pz8zlslsQnE4jjZimothStTxnFFW6bv_6GWac6yvq0opLUBy-rjquOCKMlnVwU65nErJOJhtDhubrw2j5qYB86-Bit_ejZxXG_QP9P7LK3izA5iDe4iPvzMGfS2s5oe73G6t2ZZrZ_MU3IjFzTljnG4uMxwMN0J08BdldpYU</recordid><startdate>201704</startdate><enddate>201704</enddate><creator>Zawadzka, Katarzyna</creator><creator>Higham, Philip A</creator><creator>Hanczakowski, Maciej</creator><general>American Psychological Association</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0214-1184</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8980-4918</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201704</creationdate><title>Confidence in Forced-Choice Recognition: What Underlies the Ratings?</title><author>Zawadzka, Katarzyna ; Higham, Philip A ; Hanczakowski, Maciej</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a437t-9f146973e96876d6f7ec528683833d9af4385d0a50561c9b57123dae3d183bd53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Choice Behavior - physiology</topic><topic>Coercion</topic><topic>Confidence Testing</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Evidence</topic><topic>Experimental psychology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Forced Choice (Testing Method)</topic><topic>Foreign Countries</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Judgment</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Measurement Techniques</topic><topic>Memory</topic><topic>Reaction Time - physiology</topic><topic>Recognition</topic><topic>Recognition (Learning)</topic><topic>Recognition (Psychology)</topic><topic>Recognition (Psychology) - physiology</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Self-Confidence</topic><topic>Students</topic><topic>Undergraduate Students</topic><topic>Universities</topic><topic>Verbal Learning</topic><topic>Vocabulary</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zawadzka, Katarzyna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Higham, Philip A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hanczakowski, Maciej</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>APA PsycArticles®</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zawadzka, Katarzyna</au><au>Higham, Philip A</au><au>Hanczakowski, Maciej</au><au>Greene, Robert L</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1136027</ericid><atitle>Confidence in Forced-Choice Recognition: What Underlies the Ratings?</atitle><jtitle>Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition</jtitle><addtitle>J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn</addtitle><date>2017-04</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>43</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>552</spage><epage>564</epage><pages>552-564</pages><issn>0278-7393</issn><eissn>1939-1285</eissn><abstract>Two-alternative forced-choice recognition tests are commonly used to assess recognition accuracy that is uncontaminated by changes in bias. In such tests, participants are asked to endorse the studied item out of 2 presented alternatives. Participants may be further asked to provide confidence judgments for their recognition decisions. It is often assumed that both recognition decisions and confidence judgments in 2-alternative forced-choice recognition tests depend on participants' assessments of a difference in strength of memory evidence supporting the 2 alternatives-the relative account. In the present study we focus on the basis of confidence judgments and we assess the relative account of confidence against the absolute account of confidence, by which in assigning confidence participants consider only strength of memory evidence supporting the chosen alternative. The results of the study show that confidence in 2-alternative forced-choice recognition decisions is higher when memory evidence is stronger for the chosen alternative and also when memory evidence is stronger for the unchosen alternative. These patterns of results are consistent with the absolute account of confidence in 2-alternative forced-choice recognition but they are inconsistent with the relative account.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Psychological Association</pub><pmid>27685019</pmid><doi>10.1037/xlm0000321</doi><tpages>13</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0214-1184</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8980-4918</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0278-7393 |
| ispartof | Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 2017-04, Vol.43 (4), p.552-564 |
| issn | 0278-7393 1939-1285 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1859734101 |
| source | MEDLINE; EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES |
| subjects | Accuracy Animals Choice Behavior - physiology Coercion Confidence Testing Decision making Evidence Experimental psychology Female Forced Choice (Testing Method) Foreign Countries Human Humans Judgment Male Measurement Techniques Memory Reaction Time - physiology Recognition Recognition (Learning) Recognition (Psychology) Recognition (Psychology) - physiology Reproducibility of Results Self-Confidence Students Undergraduate Students Universities Verbal Learning Vocabulary |
| title | Confidence in Forced-Choice Recognition: What Underlies the Ratings? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-19T16%3A18%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Confidence%20in%20Forced-Choice%20Recognition:%20What%20Underlies%20the%20Ratings?&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20experimental%20psychology.%20Learning,%20memory,%20and%20cognition&rft.au=Zawadzka,%20Katarzyna&rft.date=2017-04&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=552&rft.epage=564&rft.pages=552-564&rft.issn=0278-7393&rft.eissn=1939-1285&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/xlm0000321&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E4321778581%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1824548017&rft_id=info:pmid/27685019&rft_ericid=EJ1136027&rfr_iscdi=true |