Limits...
Dubious decision evidence and criterion flexibility in recognition memory.

Kantner J, Vettel JM, Miller MB - Front Psychol (2015)

Bottom Line: Critical errors were frequent, similar across sources of motivation, and only moderately reduced by feedback.In Experiment 3, critical errors were only modestly reduced in a version of the security patrol with no study phase.These findings indicate that participants use even transparently non-probative information as an alternative to heavy reliance on a decision rule, a strategy that precludes optimal criterion placement.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen, MD USA ; University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA USA.

ABSTRACT
When old-new recognition judgments must be based on ambiguous memory evidence, a proper criterion for responding "old" can substantially improve accuracy, but participants are typically suboptimal in their placement of decision criteria. Various accounts of suboptimal criterion placement have been proposed. The most parsimonious, however, is that subjects simply over-rely on memory evidence - however faulty - as a basis for decisions. We tested this account with a novel recognition paradigm in which old-new discrimination was minimal and critical errors were avoided by adopting highly liberal or conservative biases. In Experiment 1, criterion shifts were necessary to adapt to changing target probabilities or, in a "security patrol" scenario, to avoid either letting dangerous people go free (misses) or harming innocent people (false alarms). Experiment 2 added a condition in which financial incentives drove criterion shifts. Critical errors were frequent, similar across sources of motivation, and only moderately reduced by feedback. In Experiment 3, critical errors were only modestly reduced in a version of the security patrol with no study phase. These findings indicate that participants use even transparently non-probative information as an alternative to heavy reliance on a decision rule, a strategy that precludes optimal criterion placement.

No MeSH data available.


Mean criterion shifts in the feedback and no feedback conditions of the Percent and Patrol tasks in Experiment 1. Error bars represent the SEM.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4561817&req=5

Figure 2: Mean criterion shifts in the feedback and no feedback conditions of the Percent and Patrol tasks in Experiment 1. Error bars represent the SEM.

Mentions: Mean criterion shifts (cconservative – cliberal) are displayed as a function of task and feedback condition in Figure 2. As is evident from the figure, criterion shifting was robust, and increased with feedback. A Task × Feedback ANOVA revealed a main effect of task, F(1,110) = 5.56, p < 0.05, = 0.048, and feedback, F(1,110) = 14.7, p < 0.001, = 0.118, indicating that participants shifted significantly more in the Percent task than in the Patrol task, and that feedback increased shifting across both tasks. The main effect of task, however, was driven by the feedback condition, reflected by a significant Task × Feedback interaction, F(1,110) = 15.9, p < 0.001, = 0.126. Without feedback, shifting was directionally (but non-significantly) greater in the Patrol task, t(54) = 1.42, p = 0.16, but participants receiving feedback shifted far more in the Percent task, t(56) = 3.91, p < 0.001.


Dubious decision evidence and criterion flexibility in recognition memory.

Kantner J, Vettel JM, Miller MB - Front Psychol (2015)

Mean criterion shifts in the feedback and no feedback conditions of the Percent and Patrol tasks in Experiment 1. Error bars represent the SEM.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4561817&req=5

Figure 2: Mean criterion shifts in the feedback and no feedback conditions of the Percent and Patrol tasks in Experiment 1. Error bars represent the SEM.
Mentions: Mean criterion shifts (cconservative – cliberal) are displayed as a function of task and feedback condition in Figure 2. As is evident from the figure, criterion shifting was robust, and increased with feedback. A Task × Feedback ANOVA revealed a main effect of task, F(1,110) = 5.56, p < 0.05, = 0.048, and feedback, F(1,110) = 14.7, p < 0.001, = 0.118, indicating that participants shifted significantly more in the Percent task than in the Patrol task, and that feedback increased shifting across both tasks. The main effect of task, however, was driven by the feedback condition, reflected by a significant Task × Feedback interaction, F(1,110) = 15.9, p < 0.001, = 0.126. Without feedback, shifting was directionally (but non-significantly) greater in the Patrol task, t(54) = 1.42, p = 0.16, but participants receiving feedback shifted far more in the Percent task, t(56) = 3.91, p < 0.001.

Bottom Line: Critical errors were frequent, similar across sources of motivation, and only moderately reduced by feedback.In Experiment 3, critical errors were only modestly reduced in a version of the security patrol with no study phase.These findings indicate that participants use even transparently non-probative information as an alternative to heavy reliance on a decision rule, a strategy that precludes optimal criterion placement.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen, MD USA ; University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA USA.

ABSTRACT
When old-new recognition judgments must be based on ambiguous memory evidence, a proper criterion for responding "old" can substantially improve accuracy, but participants are typically suboptimal in their placement of decision criteria. Various accounts of suboptimal criterion placement have been proposed. The most parsimonious, however, is that subjects simply over-rely on memory evidence - however faulty - as a basis for decisions. We tested this account with a novel recognition paradigm in which old-new discrimination was minimal and critical errors were avoided by adopting highly liberal or conservative biases. In Experiment 1, criterion shifts were necessary to adapt to changing target probabilities or, in a "security patrol" scenario, to avoid either letting dangerous people go free (misses) or harming innocent people (false alarms). Experiment 2 added a condition in which financial incentives drove criterion shifts. Critical errors were frequent, similar across sources of motivation, and only moderately reduced by feedback. In Experiment 3, critical errors were only modestly reduced in a version of the security patrol with no study phase. These findings indicate that participants use even transparently non-probative information as an alternative to heavy reliance on a decision rule, a strategy that precludes optimal criterion placement.

No MeSH data available.