The accuracy of abstracts in psychology journals

This article provides an empirically supported reminder of the importance of accuracy in scientific communication. The authors identify common types of inaccuracies in research abstracts and offer suggestions to improve abstract-article agreement. Abstracts accompanying 13% of a random sample of 400 research articles published in 8 American Psychological Association journals during 1997 and 1998 contained data or claims inconsistent with or missing from the body of the article. Error rates ranged from 8% to 18%, although between-journal differences were not significant. Many errors (63%) were unlikely to cause substantive misinterpretations. Unfortunately, 37% of errors found could be seriously misleading with respect to the data or claims presented in the associated article. Although deficient abstracts may be less common in psychology journals than in major medical journals (R. M. Pitkin, M. A. Branagan, & L. F. Burmeister, 1999), there is still cause for concern and need for improvement.     

Mechanisms of source confusion and discounting in short-term priming: 1. Effects of prime duration and prime recognition

Huber, Shriffrin, Lyle, and Ruys (2001) measured short-term repetition priming effects in perceptual identification with two-alternative forced-choice testing. There was a preference to choose repeated words following passive viewing of primes and a preference against choosing repeated words following active responding to primes. In this present study, we explored conditions of prime processing that produce this pattern of results. Experiment 1 revealed that increased prime duration under passive viewing instructions produces the active priming pattern. Experiment 2 assessed memory for primes: With poor recognition of primes, there was a strong preference for repeated words; however, with good recognition of primes, this preference was eliminated. These results are modeled by a computational theory of optimal decision making, responding optimally with unknown sources of evidence (ROUSE). In ROUSE, a preference for repeated words results from source confusion between primes and choice words. A reversal in the direction of preference arises from the discounting of words known to have also appeared as primes.     

How does background information improve memory for text content?

In two experiments, we investigated whether reading background information benefits memory for text content by influencing the amount of content encoded or the organization of the encoded content. In Experiment 1, half of the participants read background information about the issues to be discussed in the text material, whereas half did not. All the participants were then tested for free recall and cued recall of text content. Free recall was greater for individuals who read issue information than for those who did not. The groups did not differ on cued recall, suggesting that background information did not facilitate the encoding of more text content. Measures of representational organization indicated that increased recall in the issue information group resulted from better organization of content in memory. Experiment 2 extended these findings, using background information about text sources, demonstrated that the efficacy of background information depends on the semantic relationship between that information and text content.     

Recognition memory for source and occurrence: The importance of recollection

Previous recognition memory studies indicate that when both recollection and familiarity are expected to contribute to recognition performance (e.g., discriminating studied items from nonstudied items) the dual-process and the unequal-variance signal detection models provide comparable accounts of performance. When familiarity is not expected to be useful (e.g., when items from two equally familiar sources are discriminated between), the dual-process model provides a significantly better account of performance. In the present study, source recognition was tested under conditions in which familiarity could have been used to perform a list-discrimination task; participants were required to discriminate between strong studied items, weak studied items, and new items. The dual-process model provided a better account of performance than did the unequal-variance model. Moreover, the results indicated that the unequal-variance assumption in a single-process signal detection model was not a valid substitution for recollection and that recollection was used to make recognition judgments even when assessments of familiarity were useful.     

Strong cues are not necessarily weak: Thomson and Tulving (1970) and the encoding specificity principle revisited

Performance on tests in which there is control over reporting (e.g., cued recall with the option to withhold responses) can be characterized by four parameters: free- and forced-report retrieval (correct responses retrieved from memory when the option to withhold responses is exercised and when it is not, respectively), monitoring (discrimination between correct and incorrect potential responses), and report bias (willingness to report responses). Typically, researchers do not examine all these components in cued-test performance; blanks are sometimes counted the same as errors, meaning that the (free-report) performance index is contaminated with report bias and monitoring ability. In this research, a two-stage testing procedure is described that allows measures of free- and forced-report retrieval, monitoring, and bias to be derived from the original encoding specificity experiments (Thomson & Tulving, 1970). The results show that their cue-reinstatement manipulation affected free-report retrieval, but once report bias and monitoring effects were removed by forcing output, retrieval was unaffected.     

Background beliefs in Bayesian inference

We report five experiments in which the role of background beliefs in social judgments of posterior probability was investigated. From a Bayesian perspective, people should combine prior probabilities (or base rates) and diagnostic evidence with equal weighting, although previous research shows that base rates are often underweighted. These experiments were designed so that either piece of information was supplied either by personal beliefs or by presented statistics, and regression analyses were performed on individual participants to assess the relative influence of information. We found that both prior probabilities and diagnostic information significantly influenced judgments, whether supplied by beliefs or by statistical information, but that belief-based information tended to dominate the judgments made.     

The effect of category learning on sensitivity to within-category correlations

A salient property of many categories is that they are not just sets of independent features but consist of clusters of correlated features. Although there is much evidence that people are sensitive to between-categories correlations, the evidence about within-category correlations is mixed. Two experiments tested whether the disparities might be due to different learning and test tasks. Subjects learned about categories either by classifying items or by inferring missing features of items. Their knowledge of the correlations was measured with classification, prediction, typicality, and production tests. The inference learners, but not the classification learners, showed sensitivity to the correlations, although different tests were differentially sensitive. These results reconcile some earlier disparities and provide a more complete understanding of people's sensitivities to within-category correlations.     

Global self-esteem across the life span

This study provides a comprehensive picture of age differences in self-esteem from age 9 to 90 years using cross-sectional data collected from 326,641 individuals over the Internet. Self-esteem levels were high in childhood, dropped during adolescence, rose gradually throughout adulthood, and declined sharply in old age. This trajectory generally held across gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and nationality (U.S. citizens vs. non-U.S. citizens). Overall, these findings support previous research, help clarify inconsistencies in the literature, and document new trends that require further investigation.