The role of feedback and dot presentation format in younger and older adults’ number estimation

Numerosity estimation, the rapid assessment of the number of items in a visual scene, is historically inaccurate. We assessed whether providing feedback regarding the correct numerosity on either 0%, 50%, or 100% of the trials would affect younger and older adults’ estimation accuracy for randomized, clustered (i.e., groups of 3 or 7 dots), and stacked (i.e., column) dot formats. Participants provided estimates and confidence ratings in six blocks, each containing 48 trials (16 numerosities shown in each format). Feedback frequency was manipulated between participants during blocks 1–4; no feedback was provided during blocks 5 and 6, which contained old and new numerosities and previously estimated presentations rotated 90°. Estimation accuracy was age equivalent across blocks despite younger adults initially being more accurate than older adults. Feedback improved both age groups’ accuracy. Stacked presentations were most accurately estimated but were more likely to be over-estimated than clustered and randomized presentations. Older adults gave lower confidence ratings than younger adults despite both age groups showing increased confidence across blocks, for more structured presentation formats, and as feedback frequency increased. These results expand our understanding of the role of presentation format and feedback in producing age equivalence or age-related differences in numerosity estimation.     

Holding One’s Own

There is a tension with regard to regulative norms of inquiry. One’s commitments must survive critical scrutiny, and if they do not survive, they should be revised. Alternately, for views to be adequately articulated and defended, their proponents must maintain a strong commitment to the views in question. A solution is proposed with the notion of holding one’s own as the virtue of being reason-responsive with the prospects of improving the view in question.

Rationales in children’s causal learning from others’ actions

Shown commensurate actions and information by an adult, preschoolers’ causal learning was influenced by the pedagogical context in which these actions occurred. Four-year-olds who were provided with a reason for an experimenter’s action relevant to learning causal structure showed more accurate causal learning than children exposed to the same action and data accompanied by an inappropriate rationale or accompanied by no explanatory information. These results suggest that children’s accurate causal learning is influenced by contextual factors that specify the instructional value of others’ actions.     

The need to explain

How do reasoners deal with inconsistencies? James (1907) believed that the rational solution is to revise your beliefs and to do so in a minimal way. We propose an alternative: You explain the origins of an inconsistency, which has the side effect of a revision to your beliefs. This hypothesis predicts that individuals should spontaneously create explanations of inconsistencies rather than refute one of the assertions and that they should rate explanations as more probable than refutations. A pilot study showed that participants spontaneously explain inconsistencies when they are asked what follows from inconsistent premises. In three subsequent experiments, participants were asked to compare explanations of inconsistencies against minimal refutations of the inconsistent premises. In Experiment 1, participants chose which conclusion was most probable; in Experiment 2 they rank ordered the conclusions based on their probability; and in Experiment 3 they estimated the mean probability of the conclusions' occurrence. In all three studies, participants rated explanations as more probable than refutations. The results imply that individuals create explanations to resolve an inconsistency and that these explanations lead to changes in belief. Changes in belief are therefore of secondary importance to the primary goal of explanation.     

Indirect perceptual realism and demonstratives

I defend indirect perceptual realism against two recent and related charges to it offered by A. D. Smith and P. Snowdon, both stemming from demonstrative reference involving indirect perception. The needed aspects of the theory of demonstratives are not terribly new, but their connection to these objections has not been discussed. The groundwork for my solution emerges from considering normal cases of indirect perception (e.g., seeing something depicted on a television) and examining the role this indirectness plays in demonstrative assertions. I argue that indirectness routinely if not typically plays a justificatory role in such judgements, and not a semantic one, and that the same can be said of such judgements when considered within the indirect realist framework. The denial of this, on my analysis, is essential to the criticisms of Snowdon and Smith. The discussion is extended to include scenarios involving the sorts of misconceptions Smith employs.

Testing multiple motives in feedback seeking: The interaction of instrumentality and self protection motives

Research indicates that information received from feedback seeking is valuable for both individual and organizational outcomes. Previous research examining the feedback seeking process has consistently suggested that individual's feedback behaviors are directly influenced by three motives. Specifically, individuals are instrumentally motivated to obtain valued information but are also motivated to protect and/or enhance their ego and to protect others' impressions of them (Ashford, Blatt and VandeWalle, 2003). The current study simultaneously examined these motives by testing the interactive effects of them on feedback seeking behavior. As predicted, they did significantly interact and the results present a deeper understanding of these motives and how employees weigh various factors in deciding whether to seek feedback within the organization.     

Aligning confidence with accuracy: revisiting the role of feedback

Evaluation point feedback was used to align confidence judgments with accurate/inaccurate responding to general knowledge questions. Rehearsal of item-answer pairs and three evaluation systems based on a scoring rule had different effects on confidence, accuracy and their relationship. Using standard calibration measures (Yates, J.F., (1990). Judgment and Decision Making. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall) we found that a point system comprising of both rewarding (positive) and punishing (negative) consequences produced the best performance across levels of knowledge in comparison to all-rewarding and all-penalty rules.     

A comparison of adults’ and children's metacognition for yes/no recognition decisions

Basic metacognitive development research suggests that metacognitive abilities develop before adolescence. However, this research has not used tasks that require the discrimination of seen from unseen stimuli, an important element of real-world recognition tasks such as eyewitness identification. We tested the idea that children would be less able to monitor and control the accuracy of their memories in such a task. We used a word-pair recognition task to compare children's (109 8–12 year olds) and adult's (102 first-year psychology students) ability to adaptively make, monitor, and control the reporting of yes/no recognition decisions about familiar stimuli in a task with no demand effects. We found that adults were substantially better at discriminating old from new stimuli, but no evidence of an age difference in metacognitive ability. Although these results do not explain children's poor metacognition in eyewitness identification, they suggest potential steps to improve children's identification performance.     

Stereotype threat and feedback seeking in the workplace

This study examined stereotype threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995) in workplace settings and investigated relationships of stereotype threat to feedback seeking and feedback acceptance. Results from a sample of 166 African American managers showed that solo status in the work group predicted perceptions of stereotype threat. In addition, stereotype threat related positively to indirect feedback seeking and discounting of performance feedback from superiors. These findings have important implications for understanding the causes of group differences in job performance.