Response error and processing biases in confidence judgment

Previous studies showed that random error can explain overconfidence effects typically observed in the literature. One of these studies concluded that, after accounting for random error effects in the data, there is little support for cognitive‐processing biases in confidence elicitation. In this paper, we investigate more closely the random error explanation for overconfidence. We generated data from four models of confidence and then estimated the magnitude of random error in the data. Our results show that, in addition to the true magnitude of random error specified in the simulations, the error estimates are influenced by important cognitive‐processing biases in the confidence elicitation process. We found that random error in the response process can account for the degree of overconfidence found in calibration studies, even when that overconfidence is actually caused by other factors. Thus, the error models say little about whether cognitive biases are present in the confidence elicitation process. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Changes in functional response units with briefly delayed reinforcement

In two experiments, key-peck responding of pigeons was compared under variable-interval schedules that arranged immediate reinforcement and ones that arranged unsignaled delays of reinforcement. Responses during the nominal unsignaled delay periods had no effect on the reinforcer presentations. In Experiment 1, the unsignaled delays were studied using variable-interval schedules as baselines. Relative to the immediate reinforcement condition, 0.5-s unsignaled delays decreased the duration of the reinforced interresponse times and increased the overall frequency of short (<0.5-s) interresponse times. Longer, 5.0-s unsignaled delays increased the duration of the reinforced interresponse times and decreased the overall frequency of the short interresponse times. In Experiment 2, similar effects to those of Experiment 1 were obtained when the 0.5-s unsignaled delays were imposed upon a baseline schedule that explicitly arranged reinforcement of short interresponse times and therefore already generated a large number of short interresponse times. The results support earlier suggestions that the unsignaled 0.5-s delays change the functional response unit from a single key peck to a multiple key-peck unit. These findings are discussed in terms of the mechanisms by which contingencies control response structure in the absence of specific structural requirements.     

Effects of response requirement and alcohol on human aggressive responding.

Nine men participated in two experiments to determine the effects of increased response requirement and alcohol administration on free-operant aggressive responding. Two response buttons (A and B) were available. Pressing Button A was maintained by a fixed-ratio 100 schedule of point presentation. Subjects were instructed that completion of each fixed-ratio 10 on Button B resulted in the subtraction of a point from a fictitious second subject. Button B presses were defined as aggressive because they ostensibly resulted in the presentation of an aversive stimulus to another person. Aggressive responses were engendered by a random-time schedule of point loss and were maintained by initiation of intervals free of point loss. Instructions attributed these point losses to Button B presses of the fictitious other subject. In Experiment 1, increasing the ratio requirement on Button B decreased the number of ratios completed in 4 of 5 subjects. In Experiment 2, the effects of placebo and three alcohol doses (0.125, 0.25, and 0.375 g/kg) were determined when Button B presses were maintained at ratio values of 20, 40 and 80. Three subjects who reduced aggressive responding with increasing fixed-ratio values reduced aggressive responding further at higher alcohol doses. One subject who did not reduce aggressive responding with increasing fixed-ratio values increased aggressive responding at the highest alcohol dose. The results of this study support suggestions that alcohol alters aggressive behavior by reducing the control of competing contingencies.     

An automated test development of parallel tests from a seed test

Binary programming models are presented to generate parallel tests from an itembank. The parallel tests are created to match item for item an existing seed test and match user supplied taxonomic specifications. The taxonomic specifications may be either obtained from the seed test or from some other user requirement. An algorithm is presented along with computational results to indicate the overall efficiency of the process. Empirical findings based on an itembank for the Arithmetic Reasoning section of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery are given.The Office of Naval Research, Program in Cognitive Science, N00014-87-C-0696 partially supported the work of Douglas H. Jones. The Rutgers Research Resource Committee of the Graduate School of Management partially supported the work of Douglas H. Jones and Ing-Long Wu. A Thomas and Betts research fellowship partially supported the work of Ing-Long Wu. The Human Resources Laboratory, United States Air Force, partially supported the work of Ronald Armstrong. The authors benefited from conversations with Dr. Wayne Shore, Operational Technologies, San Antonio, Texas. The order of authors' names is alphabetical and denotes equal authorship.     

Using item-specific instructional information in achievement modeling

The problem of detecting instructional sensitivity (item basis) in test items is considered. An illustration is given which shows that for tests with many biased items, traditional item bias detection schemes give a very poor assessment of bias. A new method is proposed instead. This method extends item response theory (IRT) by including item-specific auxiliary measurement information related to opportunity-to-learn. Item-specific variation in measurement relations across students with varying opportunity-to-learn is allowed for.This paper was presented at the 1987 AERA meeting in Washington, DC. This research was supported by grant OERI-G-86-003 from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Department of Education. The author thanks Michael Hollis and Chih-fen Kao for valuable research assistance, and appreciates valuable comments made by an anonymous reviewer.     

A quantitative analysis of chain-schedule performance

Six pigeons were trained with a chain variable-interval variable-interval schedule on the left key and with reinforcers available on the right key on a single variable-interval schedule arranged concurrently with both links of the chain. All three schedules were separately and systematically varied over a wide range of mean intervals. During these manipulations, the obtained reinforcer rates on constant arranged schedules also frequently changed systematically. Increasing reinforcer rates in Link 2 of the chain increased response rates in both links and decreased response rates in the variable-interval schedule concurrently available with Link 2. Increasing Link-1 reinforcer rates increased Link-1 response rates and decreased Link-2 response rates. Increasing reinforcer rates on the right-key schedule decreased response rates in Link 1 of the chain but did not affect the rate in Link 2. The results extend and amplify previous analyses of chain-schedule performance and help define the effects that a quantitative model must describe. However, the complexity of the results, and the fact that constant arranged reinforcer schedules did not necessarily lead to constant obtained reinforcer rates, precluded a quantitative analysis.     

The operant conditioning of response variability: Free-operant versus discrete-response procedures

The operant conditioning of response variability under free-operant and discrete-response procedures was investigated. Two pigeons received food only if their pattern of four pecks on two response keys differed from the patterns emitted on the two immediately preceding trials. Under the free-operant procedure, the keys remained illuminated and operative throughout each trial. There was little variability in the response patterns that resulted, and the pigeons received fewer than one third of the available reinforcers. Under the discrete-response procedure, a brief timeout period followed each response. Variability increased under this procedure, and the pigeons obtained three fourths of the available reinforcers. Previous successes and failures to produce response variability may have been due to the use or failure to use, respectively, a discrete-response procedure. Respondent effects inherent in the free-operant procedure may encourage the development of response stereotypy and, in turn, prevent the development of response variability.     

Delayed temporal discrimination in pigeons: A comparison of two procedures

A within-subjects comparison was made of pigeons' performance on two temporal discrimination procedures that were signaled by differently colored keylight samples. During stimulus trials, a peck on the key displaying a slanted line was reinforced following short keylight samples, and a peck on the key displaying a horizontal line was reinforced following long keylight samples, regardless of the location of the stimuli on those two choice keys. During position trials, a peck on the left key was reinforced following short keylight samples and a peck on the right key was reinforced following long keylight samples, regardless of which line stimulus appeared on the correct key. Thus, on stimulus trials, the correct choice key could not be discriminated prior to the presentation of the test stimuli, whereas on position trials, the correct choice key could be discriminated during the presentation of the sample stimulus. During Phase 1, with a 0-s delay between sample and choice stimuli, discrimination learning was faster on position trials than on stimulus trials for all 4 birds. During Phase 2, 0-, 0.5-, and 1.0-s delays produced differential loss of stimulus control under the two tasks for 2 birds. Response patterns during the delay intervals provided some evidence for differential mediation of the two delayed discriminations. These between-task differences suggest that the same processes may not mediate performance in each.     

Reliability of test scores in nonparametric item response theory

Three methods for estimating reliability are studied within the context of nonparametric item response theory. Two were proposed originally by Mokken (1971) and a third is developed in this paper. Using a Monte Carlo strategy, these three estimation methods are compared with four classical lower bounds to reliability. Finally, recommendations are given concerning the use of these estimation methods.The authors are grateful for constructive comments from the reviewers and from Charles Lewis.     

Varying response-reinforcer contiguity in a recycling conjunctive schedule

Three experiments describe the effects of manipulating the frequency of response-reinforcer contiguity in a recycling conjunctive schedule. The schedule arranged that a reinforcer was delivered after 30 s provided at least one response had occurred; otherwise the next cycle started immediately. In Experiment 1, this schedule produced the typical pause–respond–pause pattern, with most responses at mid-interval; and, when a limited number of contiguities between responses and food delivery were added, the pattern became more like the monotonic scallop seen on fixed-interval schedules. In Experiment 2, the schedule was initially presented with an additional contingency that allowed contiguity on every trial. Fixed-interval-like behavior occurred and tended to persist as contiguities were gradually eliminated. In Experiment 3, the recycling conjunctive schedule alternated with a condition in which a large number of contiguities occurred. The pause–respond–pause pattern and fixed-interval-like performance occurred with few or many contiguities, respectively. The results of all three experiments illustrate how contiguity interacts with a small number of other variables to determine performance on interval schedules and illuminate previous findings with fixed-interval and fixed-time schedules.