Response error and processing biases in confidence judgment

Previous studies showed that random error can explain overconfidence effects typically observed in the literature. One of these studies concluded that, after accounting for random error effects in the data, there is little support for cognitive‐processing biases in confidence elicitation. In this paper, we investigate more closely the random error explanation for overconfidence. We generated data from four models of confidence and then estimated the magnitude of random error in the data. Our results show that, in addition to the true magnitude of random error specified in the simulations, the error estimates are influenced by important cognitive‐processing biases in the confidence elicitation process. We found that random error in the response process can account for the degree of overconfidence found in calibration studies, even when that overconfidence is actually caused by other factors. Thus, the error models say little about whether cognitive biases are present in the confidence elicitation process. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Mixing compatible and incompatible mappings: Elimination, reduction, and enhancement of spatial compatibility effects

In two-choice tasks, the compatible mapping of left stimulus to left response and right stimulus to right response typically yields better performance than does the incompatible mapping. Nonetheless, when compatible and incompatible mappings are mixed within a block of trials, the spatial compatibility effect is eliminated. Two experiments evaluated whether the elimination of compatibility effects by mixing compatible and incompatible mappings is a general or specific phenomenon. Left-right physical locations, arrow directions, and location words were mapped to keypress responses in Experiment 1 and vocal responses in Experiment 2. With keypresses, mixing compatible and incompatible mappings eliminated the compatibility effect for physical locations and arrow directions, but enhanced it for words. With vocal responses, mixing significantly reduced the compatibility effect only for words. Overall, the mixing effects suggest that elimination or reduction of compatibility effects occurs primarily when the stimulus-response sets have both conceptual and perceptual similarity. This elimination may be due to suppression of a direct response-selection route, but to account for the full pattern of mixing effects it is also necessary to consider changes in an indirect response-selection route and the temporal activation properties of different stimulus-response sets.