Are you sure about that? Eliciting confidence ratings may influence performance on Raven's progressive matrices

Confidence ratings (CR) have often been integrated into reasoning and intelligence tasks as a means for assessing meta-reasoning processes. Although it is often assumed that eliciting these judgements throughout reasoning tasks has no effect on the underlying performance outcomes, this is yet to be established empirically. The current study examines whether eliciting CR from participants during a fluid-reasoning task influences their performance and how this effect is moderated by their initial self-confidence in their own reasoning abilities. In a first experiment, we found that participants performing CR during Raven's Progressive Matrices significantly outperformed a control group who did not provide ratings. Additionally, a second experiment demonstrated that CR only facilitated performance in participants who have a high level of initial self-confidence in their reasoning ability, whereas they were detrimental to participants low in self-confidence.     

The elimination‐plus lineup: Testing a modified lineup procedure with confidence

The present study examined whether a modified form of a preidentification confidence rating would provide evidence of a suspect's guilt in addition to the identification decision confidence. Participants (N  = 241) viewed a videotaped mock crime and were presented with a target‐present or target‐absent simultaneous, sequential, elimination, or elimination‐plus lineup procedure; both elimination procedures required 2 separate judgments from the witness (i.e., relative and absolute). The elimination‐plus procedure was identical to that of the elimination procedure with the addition of the confidence rating in between judgment 1 and judgment 2. Confidence after judgment 1, confidence after judgment 2, and the average of the 2 confidence ratings with the elimination‐plus procedure significantly predicted accuracy for choosers. Given that confidence has been recognised by the Supreme Court of the United States, these results shed light on a novel way of utilising confidence in the investigative process.     

决策信心在信息化从众中的作用

研究采用JAS范式,通过操纵群体信息的性质（支持和反对）以及一致性程度,考察了决策信心在信息化从众过程中的作用。结果表明：（1）个体仅在接收到反对信息时会发生决策的偏转,表现出从众;（2）群体参照信息能够显著影响个体的信心：支持性的群体信息使个体的信心显著增高,而反对性的群体信息使信心显著降低,且表现出一种“负性偏向”（即个体对来自群体的负性信息更加敏感）;（3）在反对条件下,个体信心降低的程度能够很好地预测其决策偏转的概率,即信息化从众行为。这说明,决策信心可能在信息化从众中起着核心的中介作用——反对性的群体信息使得决策信心下降,而决策信心的下降导致了决策的偏转,从而表现出从众行为。     

Aggregating conclusive and inconclusive information: Data and a model based on the assessment of threat

This study examined the process of combining conclusive and inconclusive information using a Naval threat assessment simulation. On each of 36 trials, participants interrogated 10 pieces of information (e.g., speed, direction, bearing, etc.) about “targets” in a simulated radar space. The number of hostile, peaceful, and inconclusive cues was factorially varied across targets. Three models were developed to understand how inconclusive information is used in the judgment of threat. According to one model, inconclusive information is ignored and the judgment of threat is based only on the conclusive information. According to a second model, the amount of dominant conclusive information is normalized by all of the available information. Finally, according to a third model, inconclusive information is partitioned under the assumption that it equally represents both dominant and non‐dominant evidence. In Experiment 1, the data of novices (i.e., civilians) were best described by a model that assumes a partitioning of inconclusive evidence. This result was replicated in a second experiment involving variation of the global threat context. In a third experiment involving experts (i.e., Canadian Navy officers), the data of half of the participants were best described by the partitioning model and the data of the other half were best described by the normalizing model. In Experiments 1 and 2, the presence of inconclusive information produced a “dilution effect”, whereby hostile (peaceful) targets were judged as less hostile (peaceful) than the predictions of the Partitioning model. The dilution effect was not evident in the judgments of the Navy officers. Copyright © 2009 Crown in the right of Canada. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

认知诊断测验中基于信息矩阵的多群组DIF检验

基于改进的Wald统计量,将适用于两群组的DIF检测方法拓展至多群组的项目功能差异（DIF）检验;改进的Wald统计量将分别通过计算观察信息矩阵（Obs）和经验交叉相乘信息矩阵（XPD）而得到。模拟研究探讨了此二者与传统计算方法在多个群组下的DIF检验情况,结果表明：（1）Obs和XPD的一类错误率明显低于传统方法,DINA模型估计下Obs和XPD的一类错误率接近理论水平;（2）样本量和DIF量较大时,Obs和XPD具有与传统Wald统计量大体相同的统计检验力。     

Properties of bootstrap tests for N‐of‐1 studies

N‐of‐1 study designs involve the collection and analysis of repeated measures data from an individual not using an intervention and using an intervention. This study explores the use of semi‐parametric and parametric bootstrap tests in the analysis of N‐of‐1 studies under a single time series framework in the presence of autocorrelation. When the Type I error rates of bootstrap tests are compared to Wald tests, our results show that the bootstrap tests have more desirable properties. We compare the results for normally distributed errors with those for contaminated normally distributed errors and find that, except when there is relatively large autocorrelation, there is little difference between the power of the parametric and semi‐parametric bootstrap tests. We also experiment with two intervention designs: ABAB and AB, and show the ABAB design has more power. The results provide guidelines for designing N‐of‐1 studies, in the sense of how many observations and how many intervention changes are needed to achieve a certain level of power and which test should be performed.     

《ARCS兴趣问卷》的编制

本研究以凯勒的“ARCS模型”作为理论基础,以“激励策略”作为载体和表现形式。经过开放式调查以及对教师和学生的访谈,编制了《ARCS兴趣问卷》。被试是北京师范大学附属实验小学4、5年级8个班的349名学生,施测了《ARCS兴趣问卷》。对4年级的4个班还施测了《IMMS》和《CIE&CES》问卷。对《ARCS兴趣问卷》的项目进行了筛选和修订,最后保留49条项目。对《ARCS兴趣问卷》的信度和效度进行了考察,总体来看,问卷的信度和效度都比较好。研究表明注意与切身性相关,自信心与满意相关。     

The effect of biased lineup instructions on eyewitness identification confidence

Although it is well‐known that biased lineup instructions (i.e., those that do not inform witnesses the perpetrator may not be in the lineup) inflate false identifications, their effects on witness confidence are less well understood due to methodological limitations of past studies. We report two studies that use novel methodologies to obviate these limitations. Study 1 (N = 177) demonstrated that biased lineup instructions increased witnesses' average estimates of the likelihood that a lineup member is guilty. Study 2 (N = 137) introduces a novel debiasing paradigm that allows a parsing of choosers into those who made an identification only because of the biased instructions (induced choosers), and those who would have chosen despite the instructions (inherent choosers). Biased lineup instructions inflated confidence only among induced choosers, but not among inherent choosers. Contrary to legal reasoning, witness confidence is an insufficient metric to determine the suggestiveness of biased instructions.     

A minimal ingroup advantage in emotion identification confidence

Emotion expressions convey valuable information about others’ internal states and likely behaviours. Accurately identifying expressions is critical for social interactions, but so is perceiver confidence when decoding expressions. Even if a perceiver correctly labels an expression, uncertainty may impair appropriate behavioural responses and create uncomfortable interactions. Past research has found that perceivers report greater confidence when identifying emotions displayed by cultural ingroup members, an effect attributed to greater perceptual skill and familiarity with own-culture than other-culture faces. However, the current research presents novel evidence for an ingroup advantage in emotion decoding confidence across arbitrary group boundaries that hold culture constant. In two experiments using different stimulus sets participants not only labeled minimal ingroup expressions more accurately, but did so with greater confidence. These results offer novel evidence that ingroup advantages in emotion decoding confidence stem partly from social-cognitive processes.