Remember-Know: A Matter of Confidence.

Dunn, John C.

doi:10.1037/0033-295x.111.2.524

Cited by 445 publications

(462 citation statements)

References 83 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

424

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this paradigm, partici-pants are instructed to give a "know" response if the test item only seems familiar, while they must give a "remember" response if they consciously recall having seen the test item before. It is unclear to what extent this subjective experience actually dissociates between two qualitatively different processes, or even if the two responses arise from different processes at all (W. Donaldson, 1996;Hirshman & Master, 1997;Dunn, 2004Dunn, , 2008.…”

Section: Chapter 4 Secondary Processes In Recognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Dynamic Approach to Recognition Memory

Cox¹,

Shiffrin²

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ii Acknowledgements First, I extend my thanks to my committee members for their time, consideration, and guidance. I would especially like to thank my advisors, Rich Shiffrin and Mike Jones, for first convincing me to come to Indiana, making me feel welcome, and guiding me into the world I now inhabit. I must also thank Isaiah Harbison, Michael Dougherty, and Sharona Atkins for introducing me to the very idea of mathematical psychology and for teaching me and trusting me. show how the dynamic model can be extended to account for paradigms like associative recognition and list discrimination, leading to another novel test of the presence of recall-like processes. Associative recognition, list discrimination, recognition of similar foils, and source exclusion are all better explained by the formation of a compound cue rather than recall, although source memory is found to be better modeled by a recall process.

show abstract

Section: Chapter 4 Secondary Processes In Recognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Dynamic Approach to Recognition Memory

Cox¹,

Shiffrin²

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Application of self-perception theory to confidence research is a common complicating factor in assessing theoretical relations to confidence. Indeed, many other theories obfuscate this picture including dual process models of information processing (Healy, Light, & Chung, 2005), signal detection theory (Dunn, 2004), and facial recognition theories (Weber & Brewer, 2003).…”

Section: Existing Theories Applied To Confidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Witness self‐efficacy: Development and validation of the construct

Cramer

Neal

DeCoster

et al. 2010

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study used a Self-Efficacy Theory (SET; Bandura, 1977Bandura, , 1986 framework to address the need for an outcome measure in witness preparation training. The construct of Witness Self-Efficacy, broadly defined as a witness's perceived ability to testify in court, was developed drawing largely on existing self-efficacy literature. The goal of the study was to establish initial psychometric properties for the Witness Self-Efficacy Scale (WSES).Participants acting either as mock witnesses or jurors took part in a two-phase study.First, 41 mock witnesses were asked to provide a written account of being falsely accused of an act. They were then briefly deposed about the account, and completed the WSES and construct validity questionnaires. Mock witnesses finally testified under cross-examination from a mock attorney about the accusations. In the second portion, a total of 290 mock jurors (six to eight per group) observed videotaped testimonies of participants from phase one. Mock jurors then provided predictive validity ratings of witness credibility, believability, innocence likelihood, efficacy, and agreement with testimony.Bi-variate correlation analyses showed that the WSES was significantly positively related with general self-efficacy, social self-efficacy, and general self-confidence. The WSES was significantly negatively related to introversion. The scale displayed non-significant relations with social desirability, depression, self-esteem, and innocence expectancy. Multivariate regression analyses showed that the scale failed to predict any of the primary mock juror ratings.Follow-up multivariate regression analyses showed that mock juror ratings of witness confidence iii and the WSES predicted dependent measures, although these independent variables were collinear. Finally, there was an interaction between self and observer ratings of the WSES as it predicted witness credibility.Results are discussed with regard to theoretical and applied implications. Contrary to SET, self-reported WSE appears to be largely correlated with confidence and fails to predict outcomes on its own. Concerning witness preparation, the WSES possesses solid construct validity and reliability, but requires further testing within a witness preparation training model to assess its practical utility. A self-efficacy based method of witness preparation is proposed as a manner of continued research using the WSES.

show abstract

“…That these processes retrieve different kinds of information implies that item and associative information are stored separately and may be represented in qualitatively different forms accessible only to particular processes. However, arguments in favor of this view have relied on measures of recognition accuracy that are not diagnostic of the types of processes involved (Dunn, 2004(Dunn, , 2008Wixted, 2007;Pratte & Rouder, 2012) and that are only reliable under the strong assumption of item and associative independence (Curran & Hintzman, 1995;Hillstrom & Logan, 1997;Ratcliff et al, 1995). In contrast, item and associative memory are often correlated: Item recognition is affected by the presence of an intact association, even when it is irrelevant to the task (Tulving & Thompson, 1973;Clark & Shiffrin, 1987) and while participants are able to separately assess memory for items and associations, they are influenced by the strength of both items and associations when doing so (Buchler et al, 2008;Aue et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parallel interactive retrieval of item and associative information from event memory

Cox

Criss

2017

Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Memory contains information about individual events (items) and combinations of events (associations). Despite the fundamental importance of this distinction, it remains unclear exactly how these two kinds of information are stored and whether different processes are used to retrieve them. We use both model-independent qualitative properties of response dynamics and quantitative modeling of individuals to address these issues. Item and associative information are not independent and they are retrieved concurrently via interacting processes. During retrieval, matching item and associative information mutually facilitate one another to yield an amplified holistic signal. Modeling of individuals suggests that this kind of facilitation between item and associative retrieval is a ubiquitous feature of human memory.

show abstract

Remember-Know: A Matter of Confidence.

Cited by 445 publications

References 83 publications

A Dynamic Approach to Recognition Memory

A Dynamic Approach to Recognition Memory

Witness self‐efficacy: Development and validation of the construct

Parallel interactive retrieval of item and associative information from event memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About