The role of unconscious memory errors in judgments of confidence for sentence recognition

Sampaio, Cristina; Brewer, William F.

doi:10.3758/mc.37.2.158

Cited by 27 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Th e items on which subjects were most likely to produce a false alarm also led to false alarms with highest confi dence. Th us, they also obtained a negative correlation between confi dence and accuracy with related lures, much like Sampaio and Brewer (2009) with their deceptive sentences. Roediger and McDermott (1995) also showed highconfi dence false alarms using somewhat diff erent types of word lists.…”

Section: Between-events Correlationsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Th at is, one can fi nd conditions in which the more errors people make, on average, the more confi dent they are, on average, in those errors (Brewer & Sampaio, 2005;Sampaio & Brewer, 2009). By the end of the chapter, we will have explained how all these relationships are possible and try to make sense of them.…”

Section: Conflicting Claims Of Psychologistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some evidence exists on the between-events correlations with verbal materials, primarily sentences and categorized word lists, and the results are unlike those we have observed to this point. Sampaio and Brewer (2009) used a sentence recognition task and looked at normal (nondeceptive) sentences (ones that generally were meaningful and straightforward) and what they called "deceptive" sentences. Th e latter consisted of sentences such as "Th e baby stayed awake all night" or "Th e karate champion hit the cinder block."…”

Section: Between-events Correlationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Curious Complexity between Confidence and Accuracy in Reports from Memory

Roediger¹,

Wixted²,

DeSoto³

2012

Memory and Law

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Th e relation between the probability of remembering an event and one's confi dence in it seems obvious: Th e more confi dent a person is in remembering an event, the more accurate he or she will be (and vice versa). Imagine giving people a series of events to remember every day for a week, say 10 per day. Th e events could be sentences such as "Th e hippie touched the debutante in the park" or "Th e policeman arrested the homeless woman near the movie theater." Th en, on the seventh day, people could be asked to recall (or recognize) all the sentences that had been presented that seventh day, and those from the third day of the experiment, and to rate the confi dence of each reported memory. It would surprise no one to learn that people would correctly remember more sentences from the seventh day than from the third day; surely they would be more accurate for the recent memories. In addition, there is no doubt that their confi dence would track their accuracy if confi dence were measured on, say, a 7-point rating scale (from 7 = sure the event happened to 1 = sure the event did not happen). People would be much more confi dent for the recently presented sentences than for those heard 4 days previously. Th e reason people can intuit the result of this experiment so accurately is that we essentially live this experiment every day of our lives. We can tell an inquirer what events happened to us today with reasonable accuracy and certainty, but if we are asked to retrieve events from a particular day even a few days ago, they would be much hazier to us-we would be less accurate and less confi dent.

show abstract

Section: Between-events Correlationsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Conflicting Claims Of Psychologistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Between-events Correlationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Curious Complexity between Confidence and Accuracy in Reports from Memory

Roediger¹,

Wixted²,

DeSoto³

2012

Memory and Law

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given that sentence memory is not highly specific (Sampaio & Brewer, 2009;Brewer & Lichtenstein, 1975), it is unlikely that taboo and neutral words were distinguished on semantic meaning alone.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to our results, sentence integration of a taboo word is similarly difficult to that of a semantically matched non-taboo word, but the extracted information is dissociable within memory. Previous research has shown that long-term memory encodes the gist of a sentence and critical words cannot be reliably distinguished from synonyms (Sampaio & Brewer, 2009). …”

Section: Taboo Wordsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sentence processing of taboo words: Evidence from eyetracking

Nye¹,

Ferreira²

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The reported studies investigate online processing of taboo words (e.g. shit) and their censored equivalents (e.g. s**t), relative to semantically matched non-taboo words (e.g. junk). Participants' eyes were tracked as they read sentences which contained one of the critical words. In Experiment 1, participants also encountered censored-neutral words, known as masked (e.g. j**k), but in Experiment 2, participants only encountered the taboo, censored, and neutral conditions, thus manipulating the perceptual certainty of censored words. Taboo and neutral words required similar processing time across all reading measures; liberal post-hoc analyses replicated the null effect. With regards to the censored words, Experiment 1 revealed that early word-recognition requirements were similar between censored, taboo, and neutral words, with censored words requiring additional processing time in later sentence integration measures. However, the results from Experiment 2 revealed no differences in reading time between conditions, suggesting that the masked words in Experiment 1 motivated participants to doublecheck the censored words due to their orthographic similarity. After reading all of the sentences in Experiment 2, participants' memory of the sentences was tested. Participants were able to differentiate between whether they encountered a neutral or profane word (i.e. either taboo or censor), but participants were unable to identify the specific profane word that they encountered in the reading task. We argue that the results relating to the taboo words further clarifies language's role within the functional architecture of cognition while the results relating to censorship informs how statistical regularities of language are used to process lexical-semantic information.

show abstract

Can People Identify “Deceptive” or “Misleading” Items that Tend to Produce Mostly Wrong Answers?

Koriat

2017

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many domains, two-alternative forced-choice questions produce more correct responses than wrong responses across participants. However, some items, dubbed "deceptive" or "misleading", produce mostly wrong answers. These items yield poor calibration and poor resolution because the dominant, erroneous response tends to be endorsed with great confidence, even greater than that of the correct response. In addition, for deceptive items, group discussion amplifies rather than mitigates error while enhancing confidence in the erroneous response. Can participants identify deceptive items when they are warned about their existence? It is argued that people's ability to discriminate between deceptive and non-deceptive items is poor when the erroneous responses are based on the same process assumed to underlie correct responses. Indeed, participants failed to discriminate between deceptive and non-deceptive perceptual items when they were warned that some of the items (Experiment 1) or exactly half of the items (Experiment 2) were deceptive. A similar failure was observed for general-knowledge questions (Experiment 3) except when participants were informed about the correct answer (Experiment 4). Possibly, for these tasks, people cannot escape the dangers lurking in deceptive items. In contrast, the results suggest that participants can identify deceptive problems for which the wrong answer stems from reliance on a fast, intuitive process that differs from the analytic mode that is likely to yield correct answers (Experiment 5). The practical and theoretical implications of the results were discussed.

show abstract

The role of unconscious memory errors in judgments of confidence for sentence recognition

Cited by 27 publications

References 20 publications

The Curious Complexity between Confidence and Accuracy in Reports from Memory

The Curious Complexity between Confidence and Accuracy in Reports from Memory

Sentence processing of taboo words: Evidence from eyetracking

Can People Identify “Deceptive” or “Misleading” Items that Tend to Produce Mostly Wrong Answers?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About