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.     

Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI) computer-generated diagnoses: How do they compare to clinician judgment?

During the past several decades, computers have achieved increasing prominence in psychological assessment procedures. This is particularly true for computer-based test interpretation and diagnosis. This study reports on a study designed to compare the accuracy of computer-based diagnoses with clinician-generated diagnoses. The Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI) was administered to 151 consecutively admitted inpatients at a large private psychiatric hospital. The computer-generated diagnoses were compared with those generated by admitting psychiatrists. The results indicated that the MCMI diagnostic impressions underestimated the severity of depressive disorders when compared with clinician diagnoses on Axis I. Specifically, clinicians diagnosed major depression much more frequently than did the MCMI. In addition, clinicians diagnosed anxiety disorders much less frequently than did the MCMI.     

An evaluation of the reliability of probability judgments across response modes and over time

Despite the importance of probability assessment methods in behavioral decision theory and decision analysis, little attention has been directed at evaluating their reliability and validity. In fact, no comprehensive study of reliability has been undertaken. Since reliability is a necessary condition for validity, this oversight is significant. The present study was motivated by that oversight. We investigated the reliability of probability measures derived from three response modes: numerical probabilities, pie diagrams, and odds. Unlike previous studies, the experiment was designed to distinguish systematic deviations in probability judgments, such as those due to experience or practice, from random deviations. It was found that subjects assessed probabilities reliably for all three assessment methods regardless of the reliability measures employed. However, a small but statistically significant decrease over time in the magnitudes of assessed probabilities was observed. This effect was linked to a decrease in subjects overconfidence during the course of the experiment.     

Upward versus Downward Anchoring in Frequency Judgments of Social Facts

Frequency estimation of social facts in two methods of judgment elicitation was investigated. In the “narrow-range” condition, subjects answered questions in the format: “Out of 100 incidents, how many belong to category X?” In the “wide-range” condition, the frequency for the same event was assessed with respect to “Out of 10,000”. Judged frequencies in the wide-range condition were divided by 100, and were compared with the corresponding judgments in the narrow-range condition. Such comparisons were made for low-frequency and high-frequency events. Previous research has shown that, for low-frequency events, judged frequencies are proportionally greater in the narrow-range than in the wide-range condition. These results reflect cognitive processes of implicit anchoring, whereby judged frequencies lie close to small numbers within the response ranges provided. I call this process “downward anchoring,” and predicted that this tendency would be replicated in the present study. Moreover, I predicted that assessments about high-frequency events would evoke similar cognitive processes operating in the opposite direction. By such “upward anchoring,” judged frequencies would lie close to relatively larger numbers within the given response ranges. Consequently, I predicted that judged frequencies for high-frequency events would be proportionally greater in the wide-range condition than in the narrow-range condition. These predictions were confirmed.     

Reflections on segregating and assessing areas of competence

Various complexities that arise in the application of legal and/or clinical criteria to the actual assessment of competence/capacity are discussed, and a particular way of understanding the nature of such criteria is recommended.     

Calibration of sensory and cognitive judgments: A single model for both

In a recent issue of this journal, Winman and Juslin (34 , 135–148, 1993) present a model of the calibration of subjective probability judgments for sensory discrimination tasks. They claim that the model predicts a pervasive underconfidence bias observed in such tasks, and present evidence from a training experiment that they interpret as supporting the notion that different models are needed to describe judgment of confidence in sensory and in cognitive tasks. The model is actually part of the more comprehensive decision variable partition model of subjective probability calibration that was originally proposed in Ferrell and McGoey (Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26 , 32–53, 1980). The characteristics of the model are described and it is demonstrated that the model does not predict underconfidence, that it is fully compatible with the overconfidence frequently found in calibration studies with cognitive tasks, and that it well represents experimental results from such studies. It is concluded that only a single model is needed for both types of task.     

句子先提述的参与者在可提取性上的优势现象

下述五个实验就汉语句子成分（包括句子的参与者及其动作）的提述次序对其可提取性的影响进行了研究,结果表明：（１）句子先提述的参与者比后提述的参与者容易被提取,提述的次序对参与者的可提取性有明显影响。（２）先提述参与者的这种优势与句子呈现的方式有一定的关系。（３）在系列呈现的条件下,先提述参与者的易提取性与探测词呈现的延迟间隔有关。（４）在系列呈现的条件下,参与者以名词形式出现时,被试的反应速度较快,而参与者以名字的形式出现时,反应则较慢;在同时呈现的条件下这种差异基本消失。（５）句子参与者的行动（即句子的动词）的提述次序对其可提取性也有明显的影响,说明提述次序对句子成分的可提取性的影响,不只限于句子参与者本身。     

系列范畴词表时序记忆和项目记忆研究

该项研究探讨系列范畴词表的时序长时记忆和项目长时记忆,实验设计的系列范畴词表将记忆项目分为词表内范畴相同项和词表间范畴相同项,时序记记测量方法是词表辨认,项目记忆测量方法是自由回忆。实验一发现：２分钟延缓测试词表内范畴相同项时序记忆和项目记忆优于词表间范畴相同项;６分钟以及１０分钟延缓测试时序记忆仍是词表内范畴相同项好。实验二发现：以范畴线索提取,两类项目记忆没有显著差异;以词表线索提取,两类项目