Elsevier

Acta Psychologica

Volume 50, Issue 2, March 1982, Pages 179-197
Acta Psychologica

Effects of alternating set for speed or accuracy on response time, accuracy and confidence in a unidimensional discrimination task

https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(82)90006-3Get rights and content

Abstract

Three approaches to a theoretical analysis of confidence judgments are considered: one linking confidence to the number of sensory observations, one based on a distinction between ‘state’ and ‘process’ factors, and a ‘balance of evidence’ hypothesis developed from an accumulator model of discrimination. An experiment is described in which observers were asked to decide which of two parallel lines was the longer, and to rate their confidence in each judgment. Each observer's set for speed or accuracy was manipulated over successive blocks of trials, and effects on response time, accuracy, and confidence were examined. Under an accuracy set, observers produced a higher percentage of correct responses, had longer response times, and made more confident judgments than under a set for speed. Within both speed and accuracy blocks, however, confidence ratings were inversely related to response time. The data on response accuracy, time, and confidence indicate certain deficiencies in either of the first two approaches, but were well accounted for by the third.

References (28)

  • W. Edwards

    Optimal strategies for seeking information: models for statistics, choice reaction times, and human information processing

    Journal of Mathematical Psychology

    (1965)
  • R.W. Pew

    The speed-accuracy operating characteristics

  • N.H. Anderson

    Scales and statistics: parametric and nonparametric

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1961)
  • R.J. Audley

    A stochastic model for individual choice behavior

    Psychological Review

    (1960)
  • R.J. Audley

    Decision-making

    British Medical Bulletin

    (1964)
  • B.O. Baker et al.

    Weak measurements vs. strong statistics: an empirical critique of S.S. Stevens' proscriptions on statistics

    Educational and Psychological Measurement

    (1966)
  • J.P. Egan

    ROC analysis

    (1976)
  • W. Feller

    An introduction to probability theory and its applications

    (1968)
  • L. Festinger

    Studies in decision: I. Decision-time, relative frequency of judgment, and subjective confidence as related to physical stimulus difference

    Journal of Experimental Psychology

    (1943)
  • W.R. Garner

    The processing of information and structure

    (1974)
  • H.E. Garrett

    A study of the relation of accuracy to speed

    Archives of Psychology

    (1922)
  • E.S. Geller et al.

    Confidence and decision speed in the revision of opinion

    Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance

    (1968)
  • G.V. Glass et al.

    Consequences of failure to meet assumptions underlying the fixed effects analyses of variance and covariance

    Review of Educational Research

    (1972)
  • V.A.C. Henmon

    The relation of the time of a judgment to its accuracy

    Psychological Review

    (1911)
  • Cited by (110)

    • Electrophysiological correlates of confidence differ across correct and erroneous perceptual decisions

      2022, NeuroImage
      Citation Excerpt :

      Although frontal component amplitudes positively correlated with confidence ratings, it is unclear whether this reflects processes that are specifically associated with confidence computations. For example, Kelly and O'Connell (2013) found that amplitudes of this component correlated with RT, which often covaries with confidence in perceptual decision tasks (e.g., Johnson, 1939; Festinger, 1943; Vickers & Packer, 1982; Kiani et al., 2014). Kelly and O'Connell (2013) likened this component to movement preparation-related components such as the Contingent Negative Variation or the Bereitschaftspotential (Brunia and van Boxtel, 2001; Baker et al., 2012).

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    The present paper was written by D. Vickers with the close collaboration of the second author. It is based on an experiment carried out by J. Packer as part of a Ph.D. thesis under the supervision of the first author. We are indebted to P. Barnes and R. Willson for computing assistance, to D. Caudrey and E. Rump for their comments on an earlier draft, and to P. Smith for providing proofs for the graphical representation of an accumulator process. The research was supported by an A.R.G.C. grant to the first author.

    Mailing address: Douglas Vickers, Dept. of Psychology, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, S.A. 5001, Australia.

    View full text