The influence of instructions and terminology on the accuracy of remember–know judgments

The remember–know paradigm is one of the most widely used procedures to examine the subjective experience associated with memory retrieval. We examined how the terminology and instructions used to describe the experiences of remembering and knowing affected remember–know judgments. In Experiment 1 we found that using neutral terms, i.e., Type A memory and Type B memory, to describe the experiences of remembering and knowing reduced remember false alarms for younger and older adults as compared to using the terms Remember and Know, thereby increasing overall memory accuracy in the neutral terminology condition. In Experiment 2 we found that using what we call source-specific remember–know instructions, which were intended to constrain remember judgments to recollective experiences arising only from the study context, reduced remember hits and false alarms, and increased know hits and false alarms. Based on these data and other considerations, we conclude that researchers should use neutral terminology and source-specific instructions to collect the most accurate reports of the experiences of remembering and knowing arising from the study context.     

Effects of attentional-focus instructions on movement kinematics

BackgroundRecent research has shown that internal (body-related) attention-focus instructions disrupt motor learning and performance, whereas paying attention to the environmental effects of movements (external focus) leads to better performance than an internal focus [see, for reviews, Wulf, G. (2007). Attentional focus and motor learning: a review of 10 years of research. E-Journal Bewegung und Training, 1, 4–14.; Wulf, G., &; Prinz, W. (2001). Directing attention to movement effects enhances learning: a review. Psychonomic Bulletin &; Review, 8, 648–660.]. However, Beilock's studies [Beilock, S. L., Bertenthal, B. I., McCoy, A. M., &; Carr, T. H. (2004). Haste does not always make waste: expertise, direction of attention, and speed versus accuracy in performing sensorimotor skills. Psychonomic Bulletin &; Review, 11, 373–379.] suggest that an internal focus is detrimental in experts but not in novices. Because detrimental effects of consciously attending to movements have generally been measured by performance scores such as accuracy scores or reaction times, it remains unclear how internal and external attentional-focus instructions influence movement kinematics when learning a new skill. To fill this gap, the present study investigated attentional-focus effects on a biomechanical level.MethodsA video of an expert juggler demonstrating a two-ball juggling task was presented to juggling novices. Experimental groups were given either body-related (internal group) or ball-related (external group) verbal instructions or no attention-guiding instructions (control group). In the retention phase without attention-guiding instructions, the body-movement and ball-flight aspects of performance focused on in the verbal instruction were subjected to biomechanical analyses.Results and ConclusionsJuggling performance improved equally in all three groups. However, internally vs. externally instructed acquisition phases had differential effects on the kinematics of the upper body as well as ball trajectories when performing the juggling task. Remarkably, ball trajectories in the control group who received no specific attentional cueing were similar to those in the externally instructed group. This suggests that task-relevant information is picked up independently of instructions, and that external instructions provide redundant information. Internal instructions for object-related tasks, however, may confront novice learners with the need to process additional information. As a result, task difficulty might be unnecessarily enhanced in an observational learning setting.     

Coaching cues in amateur boxing: An analysis of ringside feedback provided between rounds of competition

Feedback is commonly employed to enhance motor learning and performance. While numerous studies have investigated the causal effects of feedback on motor learning, an analysis of real-time feedback provided during training and competitive sporting environments is lacking. Therefore, the feedback provided by 12 boxing coaches to athletes between rounds of the 2015 Australian Boxing Championships was recorded and transcribed. The feedback statements were then analyzed according to three feedback variables that have been shown to be critical for optimizing performance: Attentional focus (external, internal, neutral), autonomy support (autonomy-supportive, controlling, neutral), and feedback valence (positive, negative, neutral). Collectively, 445 feedback statements provided during 25 bouts, of which 14 were won and 11 were lost, were analyzed for each of the three categories. Coaches provided on average 8 feedback statements per round. Excluding neutral statements, coaches delivered more internal (15%) compared with external focus feedback (6%), more controlling (53%) compared with autonomy-supportive feedback (6%), and more positive (29%) relative to negative feedback (12%). Furthermore, during winning bouts coaches delivered less internal (12% vs. 19%), less controlling (48% vs. 58%), and more positive (36% vs. 18%) feedback, when compared with losing bouts. These results demonstrate for the first time the type and frequency of feedback delivered during amateur boxing bouts. While these findings may or may not reflect causal relationships, it is interesting that feedback that has been found to enhance motor performance was more often used during winning rather than losing bouts.     

The influence of extinction and counterconditioning instructions on evaluative conditioning effects

In three experiments, we tested the influence of instructions about an allegedly upcoming extinction or counterconditioning phase on evaluative conditioning (EC) effects. After an acquisition phase in which neutral stimuli were related to positive or negative stimuli via instructions (Experiments 1 and 2a) or actual pairings (Experiment 2b), three different groups of participants were either informed that in the next phase the neutral stimuli would be presented without positive or negative stimuli (extinction instruction), that the neutral stimuli in the next phase would be paired with stimuli of the opposite valence than before (counterconditioning instruction), or received no further instructions. Afterwards, liking of the originally neutral stimuli was measured either with an evaluative rating (Experiment 1) or with an Implicit Association Test (IAT; Experiments 2a and 2b). EC was reduced in the counterconditioning condition of Experiment 1 and in the joint analysis of Experiments 2a and 2b. The extinction instruction led to a reduction of EC only in Experiment 1. Finally, whether the acquisition phase consisted of instructions about CS–US pairings (Experiment 2a) or the actual experience of CS–US pairings (Experiment 2b) did not significantly impact the observed changes in liking. Overall, our results suggest that similar mechanisms might mediate instruction- and experienced-based EC. Our results are in line with propositional models of EC but can be explained also by association formation models and dual process models of EC, provided that certain auxiliary assumptions are made.     

On interpreting the relationship between remember–know judgments and confidence: The role of instructions

Two experiments were designed to test the hypothesis that the nature of the remember–know instructions given to participants influences whether these responses reflect different memory states or different degrees of memory confidence. Participants studied words and nonwords, a variable that has been shown to dissociate confidence from remember–know judgments and were given a set of published remember–know instructions that either emphasized know judgments as highly confident (Experiment 1) or as less confident (Experiment 2) states of recognition. Experiment 1 replicated the standard finding showing that remembering and knowing were differently influenced by the word–nonword variable, whereas confidence responses were not. By contrast, Experiment 2 showed a similar pattern of data for remember–know and sure–unsure responses, thus demonstrating the importance of the instructions for interpreting the relationship between remembering and knowing and confidence.     

Mindset changes lead to drastic impairments in rule finding

Rule finding is an important aspect of human reasoning and flexibility. Previous studies associated rule finding failure with past experience with the test stimuli and stable personality traits. We additionally show that rule finding performance is severely impaired by a mindset associated with applying an instructed rule. The mindset was established in Phase 1 (manipulation) of the experiment, before rule finding ability was assessed in Phase 2 (testing). The impairment in rule finding was observed even when Phase 1 involved executing a single trial (Experiment 2), and when entirely different stimuli and rules were used in the two phases of the experiment (Experiments 3–6). Experiments 4–6 show that applying an instructed rule in Phase 1 impaired subsequent (Phase 2) feedback evaluation, rule generation, and attention switching between rules, which are the three component processes involved in rule finding according to COVIS (Ashby, Alfonso-Reese, Turken, & Waldron, 1998).     

Fear expression and return of fear following threat instruction with or without direct contingency experience

Prior research showed that mere instructions about the contingency between a conditioned stimulus (CS) and an unconditioned stimulus (US) can generate fear reactions to the CS. Little is known, however, about the extent to which actual CS–US contingency experience adds anything beyond the effect of contingency instructions. Our results extend previous studies on this topic in that it included fear potentiated startle as an additional dependent variable and examined return of fear (ROF) following reinstatement. We observed that CS–US pairings can enhance fear reactions beyond the effect of contingency instructions. Moreover, for all measures of fear, instructions elicited immediate fear reactions that could not be completely overridden by subsequent situational safety information. Finally, ROF following reinstatement for instructed CS+s was unaffected by actual experience. In summary, our results demonstrate the power of contingency instructions and reveal the additional impact of actual experience of CS–US pairings.     

Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power

Participants are not always as diligent in reading and following instructions as experimenters would like them to be. When participants fail to follow instructions, this increases noise and decreases the validity of their data. This paper presents and validates a new tool for detecting participants who are not following instructions - the Instructional manipulation check (IMC). We demonstrate how the inclusion of an IMC can increase statistical power and reliability of a dataset.