STEP: Reasons for Confidence [35197]

This article applies to:
E-Prime 3.0
E-Prime 1.0


Detail
Experiment Author: Susan Campbell. Adapted from STEP and used with permission of Brian MacWhinney
 
Experiment Description

This study compared the confidence of participants in their answers to two-choice trivia questions. One group were asked to answer questions as normal and provide a probability that their answer was correct. The other was asked to answer the question, then provide reasons for and against each choice, then provide a probability that their answer was correct.
 
Experiment Instructions

This experiment has two blocks of trials with separate instructions. In both blocks, participants answer trivia questions and rate their confidence after each answer on a scale of 0-100. ResonsPresList additionally asks participants to write a reason for and against both possible answers. Then participants answer the question and rate their confidence. The ControlPresList does not require participants give a reason. This list only asks a trivia question, followed by a confidence rating. The order of ReasonPresList and ControlPresList are randomized in the BlockList. Each list is restricted to sampling 25 trivia questions each, pulled from 156 total trivia questions located in TriviaQuestions List.

Experiment Citation

Koriat, A., Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B. (1980). Reasons for Confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 6(2), 107-118.
 
Cited Experiment Abstract

People are often overconfident in evaluating the correctness of their knowledge. The present studies investigated the possibility that assessment of confidence is biased by attempts to justify one’s chosen answer. These attempts include selectively focusing on evidence supporting the chosen answer and disregarding evidence contradicting it. Experiment 1 presented subjects with two-alternative questions and required them to list reasons for and against each of the alternatives prior to choosing an answer and then to list (a) one reason supporting that choice, (b) one reason contradicting it, or (c) one reason supporting and one reason contradicting. Only the listing of contradicting reasons improved the appropriateness of confidence. Correlational analyses of the data of Experiment 1 strongly suggested that the confidence depends on the amount and strength of the evidence supporting the answer chosen.
 
Works Cited by the Experiment

Adams, J.K., & Adams, P.A. Realism of confidence judgments. Psychological Review, 1961, 68, 33-45.

Blake, M. Prediction of recognition when recall fails: Exploring the feeling of knowing phenomenon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1973, 12, 311-319.

Brier, G.S. Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability. Monthly Weather Review, 1950, 78, 1-3.

Collins, A., Warnock, E.H., Aiello, N., & Miller, M.C. Reasoning from incomplete knowledge. In D.G. Bobrow & A. Collins (Eds.), Representation and understanding. New York: Academic Press, 1975.

Fischhoff, B. Perceived informativeness of facts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1977, 3, 349-358.

Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. Knowing with certainty: The appropriateness of extreme confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1977, 3, 522-564.

Gruneberg, M.M., & Monks, J. "Feeling of knowing" and cued recall. Acta Psycholgica, 1974, 38, 257-265.

Hart, J.T. Memory and the feeling of knowing experience. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1965, 56, 208-216.

Hart, J.T. Memory and the memory monitoring process. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1967, 6, 685-691.

Johnson-Laird, P.N., & Wason, P.C. A theoretical analysis of insight into a reasoning task. In P.N. Johnson-Laird & P.C. Wason (Eds.), Thinking. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1977.

Koriat, A., & Lieblich, I. A study of memory pointers. Acta Psychologica, 1977, 41, 151-164.

Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. Do those who know more also know more about how much they know? The calibration of probability judgements. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1977, 3, 552-564.

Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. Training for calibration. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, in press.

Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., & Phillips, L.D. Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art. In H. Jungermann & G. deZeeuw (Eds.), Decision making and change in human affairs. Amsterdam: D. Reidel, 1977.

Mosteller, F., & Tukey, J.W. Data analysis including statistics. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1968.

Murdock, B.B. The criterion problem in short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966, 72, 317-324.

Murphy, A.H. A new vector partition of the probability score. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 1973, 12, 595-600.

Phillips, L.D. Bayesian statistics for social scientists. London: Nelson, 1973.

Slovic, P. & Fischhoff, B. On the psychology of experimental surprises. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1977, 3, 544-551.

Smedslund, J. The concept of correlation in adults. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1963, 4, 165-173.

Tulving, E., & Thomson, D.M. Retrieval processes in recognition memory: Effects of associative context. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1971, 87, 116-124.