Old processes,new perspectives: Familiarity is correlated with (not independent of) recollection and is more (not equally) variable for targets than for lures

According to dual-process models of memory, recognition is subserved by two processes: recollection and familiarity. Many variants of these models assume that recollection and familiarity make stochastically independent contributions to performance in recognition tasks and that the variance of the familiarity signal is equal for targets and for lures. Here, we challenge these ‘common-currency’ assumptions. Using a model-comparison approach, featuring the Continuous Dual Process (CDP; Wixted & Mickes, 2010) model as the protagonist, we show that when these assumptions are relaxed, the model’s fits to individual participants’ data improve. Furthermore, our analyses reveal that across items, recollection and familiarity show a positive correlation. Interestingly, this across-items correlation was dissociated from an across-participants correlation between the sensitivities of these processes. We also find that the familiarity signal is significantly more variable for targets than for lures. One striking theoretical implication of these findings is that familiarity—rather than recollection, as most models assume—may be the main contributor responsible for one of the most influential findings of recognition memory, that of subunit zROC slopes. Additionally, we show that erroneously adopting the common-currency assumptions, introduces severe biases to estimates of recollection and familiarity.     

A systematic review on perceptual-motor calibration to changes in action capabilities

Perceptual-motor calibration has been described as a mapping between perception and action, which is relevant to distinguish possible from impossible opportunities for action. To avoid movement errors, it is relevant to rapidly calibrate to immediate changes in capabilities and therefore this study sought to explain in what conditions calibration is most efficient. A systematic search of seven databases was conducted to identify literature concerning changes in calibration in response to changes in action capabilities. Twenty-three papers satisfied the inclusion criteria. Data revealed that calibration occurs rapidly if there is a good match between the task that requires calibration and the sources of perceptual-motor information available for exploration (e.g. when exploring maximal braking capabilities by experiencing braking). Calibration can take more time when the perceptual-motor information that is available is less relevant. The current study identified a number of limitations in the field of perceptual-motor research. Most notably, the mean participant age in the included studies was between 18 and 33 years of age, limiting the generalizability of the results to other age groups. Also, due to inconsistent terminology used in the field of perceptual-motor research, we argue that investigating calibration in older cohorts should be a focus of future research because of the possible implications of impaired calibration in an aging society.     

Cognition and emotion: on paradigms and metaphors

ABSTRACT

The field of cognition and emotion is characterised as the cognitive psychology of evaluative and affective processes. The most important development in this field is the fruitful adoption of cognitive psychology paradigms to study automatic evaluation processes, for example. This has led to a plethora of findings and theories. Two points are emphasised: First, the (often metaphorical) theoretical way of thinking has changed over the decades. Theorising with symbolic models (e.g. semantic networks), which was prevalent in earlier years, has been replaced more recently by subsymbolic models (i.e. PDP models). It is argued that – despite their still metaphorical character – the latter are better suited to capturing characteristics of emotional processes. Second, the field has adopted the methods of experimental cognitive psychology to develop and refine paradigms as “windows to the mind”.     

From task characteristics to learning: A systematic review

Wielenga‐Meijer, E. G. A., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A. J. & Wigboldus, D. H. J. (2010). From task characteristics to learning: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51, 363–375. Although many theoretical approaches propose that job characteristics affect employee learning, the question is why and how job characteristics influence learning. The present study reviews the evidence on the relationships among learning antecedents (i.e., job characteristics: demands, variety, autonomy and feedback), learning processes (including motivational, meta‐cognitive, cognitive and behavioral processes) and learning consequences. Building on an integrative heuristic model, we quantitatively reviewed 85 studies published between 1969 and 2005. Our analyses revealed strong evidence for a positive relation between job demands and autonomy on the one hand and motivational and meta‐cognitive learning processes on the other. Furthermore, these learning processes were positively related to learning consequences.     

Team performance and collective efficacy in the dynamic psychology of competitive team: A Bayesian network analysis

The purpose of this paper was to discover the relationships among 22 relevant psychological features in semi-professional football players in order to study team’s performance and collective efficacy via a Bayesian network (BN). The paper includes optimization of team’s performance and collective efficacy using intercausal reasoning pattern which constitutes a very common pattern in human reasoning. The BN is used to make inferences regarding our problem, and therefore we obtain some conclusions; among them: maximizing the team’s performance causes a decrease in collective efficacy and when team’s performance achieves the minimum value it causes an increase in moderate/high values of collective efficacy. Similarly, we may reason optimizing team collective efficacy instead. It also allows us to determine the features that have the strongest influence on performance and which on collective efficacy. From the BN two different coaching styles were differentiated taking into account the local Markov property: training leadership and autocratic leadership.     

Elimination of bias in introspection: Methodological advances,refinements, and recommendations

Building on past constructive criticism, the present study provides further methodological development focused on the elimination of bias that may occur during first-person observation. First, various sources of errors that may accompany introspection are distinguished based on previous critical literature. Four main errors are classified, namely attentional, attributional, conceptual, and expressional error. Furthermore, methodological recommendations for the possible elimination of these errors have been determined based on the analysis and focused excerpting of introspective scientific literature. The following groups of methodological recommendations were determined: 1) a better focusing of the subject's attention to their mental processes, 2) providing suitable stimuli, and 3) the sharing of introspective experience between subjects. Furthermore, the potential of adjustments in introspective research designs for eliminating attentional, attributional, conceptual, and expressional error is discussed.     

Coherence and correspondence criteria for rationality: experts' estimation of risks of sexually transmitted infections

The aim of this study is to examine both coherence and correspondence criteria for rationality in experts' judgments of risk. We investigated biases in risk estimation for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) predicted by fuzzy‐trace theory, i.e., that specific errors would occur despite experts' knowledge of correct responses. One hundred twenty professionals with specific knowledge of STI risks in adolescents were administered a survey questionnaire to test predictions concerning: knowledge deficits (producing underestimation of risks); gist‐based representation of risk categories (producing overestimation of condom effectiveness); retrieval failure for risk knowledge (producing lower risk estimates); and processing interference in combining risk estimates (producing biases in post‐test diagnosis of infection). Retrieval was manipulated by asking estimation questions that “unpacked” the STI category into infection types or did not specify infection types. Other questions differentiated processing biases from knowledge deficits or retrieval failure by directly providing requisite knowledge. Experts' knowledge of STI transmission and infection risks was verified empirically. Nevertheless, under predictable conditions, they misestimated risk, overestimated the effectiveness of condoms, and also suffered from processing biases. When questions provided better retrieval supports (unpacked format), risk estimates improved. Biases were linked to gist representations, retrieval failures, and processing errors, as opposed to knowledge about STIs. Results support fuzzy‐trace theory's dual‐process assumptions that different types of errors are dissociated from one another, and separate failures of coherence and correspondence among the same sample of experts. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Revisiting the past and back to the future: Horizons of cognition and emotion research

ABSTRACT

To commemorate that Cognition & Emotion was established three decades ago, we asked some distinguished scholars to reflect on past research on the interface of cognition and emotion and prospects for the future. The resulting papers form the Special Issue on Horizons in Cognition and Emotion Research. The contributions to Horizons cover both the field in general and a diversity of specific topics, including affective neuroscience, appraisal theory, automatic evaluation, embodied emotion, emotional disorders, emotion-linked attentional bias, emotion recognition, emotion regulation, lifespan development, motivation, and social emotions. We hope that Horizons will spark constructive debates, while offering guidance for the future growth and development of research on the interface between cognition and emotion. Finally, we provide an update on how Cognition & Emotion has fared over the past year, and announce some changes in editorial policies and the editorial board.