Testing the validity of conflict drift-diffusion models for use in estimating cognitive processes: A parameter-recovery study

Researchers and clinicians are interested in estimating individual differences in the ability to process conflicting information. Conflict processing is typically assessed by comparing behavioral measures like RTs or error rates from conflict tasks. However, these measures are hard to interpret because they can be influenced by additional processes like response caution or bias. This limitation can be circumvented by employing cognitive models to decompose behavioral data into components of underlying decision processes, providing better specificity for investigating individual differences. A new class of drift-diffusion models has been developed for conflict tasks, presenting a potential tool to improve analysis of individual differences in conflict processing. However, measures from these models have not been validated for use in experiments with limited data collection. The present study assessed the validity of these models with a parameter-recovery study to determine whether and under what circumstances the models provide valid measures of cognitive processing. Three models were tested: the dual-stage two-phase model (Hübner, Steinhauser, & Lehle, Psychological Review, 117(3), 759–784, 2010), the shrinking spotlight model (White, Ratcliff, & Starns, Cognitive Psychology, 63(4), 210–238, 2011), and the diffusion model for conflict tasks (Ulrich, Schröter, Leuthold, & Birngruber, Cogntive Psychology, 78, 148–174, 2015). The validity of the model parameters was assessed using different methods of fitting the data and different numbers of trials. The results show that each model has limitations in recovering valid parameters, but they can be mitigated by adding constraints to the model. Practical recommendations are provided for when and how each model can be used to analyze data and provide measures of processing in conflict tasks.     

Being transformed: Delivering a psychotherapeutic group intervention targeting repeat suicide attempts

Clients who make repeat suicide attempts have complex needs, are at high risk of completed suicide and pose a range of challenges for clinicians. Targeted interventions are required. Acceptability, the perceived appropriateness of an intervention, is associated with successful implementation, engagement and effectiveness of interventions. Despite the advantages of group interventions, there is limited research into the acceptability of groups with this population. Using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis, this paper reports on facilitators’ experiences (n = 9) of the acceptability of a therapeutic group intervention (PISA – a Psychoeducational/psychosocial Intervention for persons who make recurrent Suicide Attempts). Analysis of focus group data revealed how involvement with the intervention profoundly influenced facilitators’ perceptions of and approach to their work with this client group. They embraced the model, developed a deeper appreciation of clients’ resources and became unburdened from sole responsibility for the clients, the therapeutic process and outcomes. PISA provided a model that helped facilitators to work in a focused, compassionate and creative manner as they addressed the central concern of these clients, their suicidal desire, with newly found confidence and eagerness. PISA was experienced as acceptable to facilitators as it was useful to them and deemed appropriate and beneficial to the target population.     

The cognitive reflection test is robust to multiple exposures

The cognitive reflection test (CRT) is a widely used measure of the propensity to engage in analytic or deliberative reasoning in lieu of gut feelings or intuitions. CRT problems are unique because they reliably cue intuitive but incorrect responses and, therefore, appear simple among those who do poorly. By virtue of being composed of so-called “trick problems” that, in theory, could be discovered as such, it is commonly held that the predictive validity of the CRT is undermined by prior experience with the task. Indeed, recent studies have shown that people who have had previous experience with the CRT score higher on the test. Naturally, however, it is not obvious that this actually undermines the predictive validity of the test. Across six studies with ~ 2,500 participants and 17 variables of interest (e.g., religious belief, bullshit receptivity, smartphone usage, susceptibility to heuristics and biases, and numeracy), we did not find a single case in which the predictive power of the CRT was significantly undermined by repeated exposure. This occurred despite the fact that we replicated the previously reported increase in accuracy among individuals who reported previous experience with the CRT. We speculate that the CRT remains robust after multiple exposures because less reflective (more intuitive) individuals fail to realize that being presented with apparently easy problems more than once confers information about the task’s actual difficulty.     

Defining the Subject of Consent in DNA Research

The advent of population-specific genomic research has prompted calls for invention of informed consent protocols that would treat entire social groups as research subjects as well as endow such groups with authority as agents of consent. Critics of such an unconventional ethical norm of “group consent” fear the rhetorical effects of approaching social groups with offers to participate in dialogues about informed consent. Addressing a specific population as the collective subject of genomic research, on this logic, adds currency to the potentially dangerous public opinion that such a group is bound by genetic ties. The paper considers the problem of group and individual identity within the rhetorical dynamics of the discourse and politics of consent.     

Demonstrations of a generation effect in context memory

Generation often leads to increased memorability within a laboratory context (see, e.g., Slamecka & Graf, 1978). Of interest in the present study is whether the benefits of generation extend beyond item memory to context memory. To investigate this question, in three experiments, we asked subjects to remember in which of two contexts they had read or generated words. In Experiment 1, the contexts were two different rooms; in Experiment 2A, the contexts were two different computer screens; in Experiment 2B, the contexts were different perceptual characteristics of the to-be-remembered words. In all experiments, subjects were better at remembering the context of generated words than of read words.     

A pediatric screening instrument to detect problematic infant–parent interactions: Initial reliability and validity in a sample of high‐ and low‐risk infants

The purpose of this study was to determine the initial reliability and validity of a screening instrument developed to detect problematic interactions between infants and parents as part of a pediatric well‐baby exam. Participants included 117 infant–mother dyads (57 preterms and 60 full terms) assessed when infants were 6 to 9 months old. Mothers and infants were observed playing an interactional game such as peek‐a‐boo during the course of the pediatric exam. The game was scored for degree of interactional reciprocity using the Pediatric Infant Parent Exam (PIPE). Acceptable levels of interrater reliability were achieved. As predicted, higher risk infants and their mothers exhibited more problematic interactions than lower risk infants and their mothers. Results indicated that the PIPE was a reliable means of screening for interactional difficulties, that was sensitive to, but not synonymous with, neonatal health indices. ©2001 Michigan Association for Infant Mental Health.     

Calming troubled waters: Peacemakers in a sports riot

This investigation sought to identify a set of measures predictive of those who would intervene in a crowd disturbance with the intent of restoring order. Male participants (N = 74) completed a battery of social and personality measures. Men who had previously attempted to break up a fight(s), including those who had recently intervened and judged their efforts to have been successful, were most likely to step in. Additionally, peacemakers were subject to the false consensus effect and strongly believed in law and order. A multiple regression analysis yielded a solution that accounted for 40.3% of the variance, with previous experience as a peacemaker and attitudes toward law and order emerging as the best predictors. Aggr. Behav. 27:292–296, 2001. © 2001 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

The Ecological Validity of Delay Aversion and Response Inhibition as Measures of Impulsivity in AD/HD: A Supplement to the NIMH Multimodal Treatment Study of AD/HD

Impulsivity is a primary symptom of the combined type of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (AD/HD). The Stop Signal Paradigm is premised upon a primary deficit in inhibitory control in AD/HD, whereas the Delay Aversion Hypothesis, by contrast, conceptualizes impulsivity in AD/HD, not as an inability to inhibit a response, but rather as a choice to avoid delay. This study compared the ecological validity of the Stop Signal Task (SST) and Choice-Delay Task (C-DT) measure of delay aversion, with respect to their relative utility in discriminating AD/HD children from normal control participants, and their correlations with classroom observations and with ratings of impulsivity and other core AD/HD symptoms on the Conners and SNAP-IV checklists. The tasks exhibited modest discriminant validity when used individually and excellent discriminant validity when used in combination. The C-DT correlated with teacher ratings of impulsivity, hyperactivity, and conduct problems, and with observations of gross motor activity, physical aggression, and an AD/HD composite score. The SST correlated with the observations only. These results suggest that delay aversion is associated with a broad range of AD/HD characteristics whereas inhibitory failure seems to tap a more discrete dimension of executive control