无意识情绪对建议接受的影响

以101名大学生为被试,用掩蔽刺激启动无意识情绪,探讨无意识情绪对建议接受程度的影响,并分析自信度在其中的作用.结果表明:(1)相较于中性情绪,无意识正性情绪或无意识负性情绪会使个体更倾向于采纳他人建议,且无意识负性情绪的作用更明显;(2)个体的自信度水平在情绪和建议接受度之间具有调节作用;(3)在接受建议后,无意识负性情绪和无意识正性情绪组个体的自信度提升量高于中性情绪组,且无意识负性情绪组提高更多.     

Regional brain activity change predicts responsiveness to treatment for stuttering in adults

Developmental stuttering is known to be associated with aberrant brain activity, but there is no evidence that this knowledge has benefited stuttering treatment. This study investigated whether brain activity could predict progress during stuttering treatment for 21 dextral adults who stutter (AWS). They received one of two treatment programs that included periodic H₂¹⁵O PET scanning (during oral reading, monologue, and eyes-closed rest conditions). All participants successfully completed an initial treatment phase and then entered a phase designed to transfer treatment gains; 9/21 failed to complete this latter phase. The 12 pass and 9 fail participants were similar on speech and neural system variables before treatment, and similar in speech performance after the initial phase of their treatment. At the end of the initial treatment phase, however, decreased activation within a single region, L. putamen, in all 3 scanning conditions was highly predictive of successful treatment progress.     

The role of prior knowledge in error correction for younger and older adults

Previous work has demonstrated that, when given feedback, younger adults are more likely to correct high-confidence errors compared with low-confidence errors, a finding termed the hypercorrection effect. Research examining the hypercorrection effect in both older and younger adults has demonstrated that the relationship between confidence and error correction was stronger for younger adults compared with older adults. However, recent work suggests that error correction is largely related to prior knowledge, while confidence may primarily serve as a proxy for prior knowledge. Prior knowledge generally remains stable or increases with age; thus, the current experiment explored how both confidence and prior knowledge contributed to error correction in younger and older adults. Participants answered general knowledge questions, rated how confident they were that their response was correct, received correct answer feedback, and rated their prior knowledge of the correct response. Overall, confidence was related to error correction for younger adults, but this relationship was much smaller for older adults. However, prior knowledge was strongly related to error correction for both younger and older adults. Confidence alone played little unique role in error correction after controlling for the role of prior knowledge. These data demonstrate that prior knowledge largely predicts error correction and suggests that both older and younger adults can use their prior knowledge to effectively correct errors in memory.     

Certainty and Uncertainty: The Two Faces of the Hindsight Bias

“Hindsight Bias” is a person's tendency, after learning about the actual outcome of a situation or the correct answer to a question, to distort a previous judgment in the direction of this new information. In the literature, hindsight bias has been mostly discussed as an inevitable result of a “judgment under uncertainty.” We think that the hindsight bias is due to memorial as well as inferential processes: Whereas certainty about the recollection is memorial and concerns the recollective experience, certainty at the time of the judgment is inferential and concerns the individual's metaknowledge (“I know that I knew that”). In two experiments participants' feelings of certainty were measured indirectly (Koriat & Goldsmith, 1996) by giving participants the option of leaving those questions unanswered about which they felt uncertain. This free-report option was offered to half of the participants in the first estimate phase (concerning time of judgment) and to the second half in the memory phase (concerning the recollective experience). At the end of the session, participants were presented again with the questions they had skipped and were now required to answer them. This procedure allowed us to compare the amount of hindsight bias for the skipped, uncertain items to the spontaneously answered, certain ones. Both experiments demonstrated that the hindsight bias is a result of the interaction of both uncertainty and certainty.     

大学生自信发展特点的研究

本研究选取931名大学生为被试,采用自编“大学生自信问卷”?考察了大学生自信的年龄特点、性别差异及学校类型差异。结果表明：大学生自信总水平差异显著,除社交自信外,整体自信、学业自信和身体自信均存在极显著性别差异,男生高于女生;大学生在整体、学业和身体自信及其分维度上存在显著年级差异：一、四年级显著高于二、三年级,其中三年级自信度明显低于其它年级;学业、社交、身体自信及其分维度存在显著学校类型差异,非重点大学学生显著高于重点大学学生;年级和学校类型在身体自信、整体自信、学业自信、社交自信及其某些层面上存在显著交互作用;性别和学校类型在身体自信某分维度的交互作用达显著水平。     

Fluctuations of answer and confidence rating in a general-knowledge problem task: Is confidence rating a result of direct memory-relevant output monitoring?

In order to examine whether confidence rating is a result of direct memory-relevant output monitoring, a general-knowledge test was used. A question set was answered in experimental session 1, and the same question set was employed in session 2. Subjects chose one answer from two alternatives. No significant difference in answer accuracy was found between sessions, which suggests that identical information processing was carried out, and that any difference between sessions was based on probabilistic fluctuation. The major results were as follows: (a) In both sessions, answer accuracy was an increasing function of confidence. (b) Answer-change rate (rate of different answers to the same question between sessions) decreased monotonically with confidence. (c) The distributions of confidence rating in session 2, conditional on the rating in session 1, were nearly identical in no-answer-change and answer-change cases. These results suggest that confidence rating is not a result of monitoring memory-relevant output itself but an estimation of possibility of answer fluctuation.     

A Test by Any Other Name: P Values,Bayes Factors,and Statistical Inference

Procedures used for statistical inference are receiving increased scrutiny as the scientific community studies the factors associated with insuring reproducible research. This note addresses recent negative attention directed at p values, the relationship of confidence intervals and tests, and the role of Bayesian inference and Bayes factors, with an eye toward better understanding these different strategies for statistical inference. We argue that researchers and data analysts too often resort to binary decisions (e.g., whether to reject or accept the null hypothesis) in settings where this may not be required.     

关于假设检验的争议:问题的澄清与解决

对传统的假设检验作为心理学实验的数据分析工具的评价涉及两个标准:首先是它是否合法,其次是它是否有用。置于频率学派统计学框架中的传统假设检验在逻辑上实际上是合法的;但它在效用性方面则有着备择假设不可证伪以及只能提供定性结论这两方面的缺陷。置信区间能够集中地改进和弥补这些缺陷。对传统假设检验使用中错误的澄清也使得研究者们开始重视PSI问题,这使得心理学实验的设计和数据分析从关注总体转向关注个体。