The effects of non-diagnostic information on confidence and decision making.

Many decision-making tasks are characterized by a combination of diagnostic and non-diagnostic information, yet models of responding and confidence almost exclusively focus on the contribution of diagnostic information (e.g., evidence associated with stimulus discriminability), largely ignoring the contribution of non-diagnostic information. An exception is Baranski and Petrusic's Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(3), 929-945, (1998) doubt-scaling model, which predicts a negative relationship between non-diagnostic information and confidence, and between non-diagnostic information and accuracy. In two perceptual-choice tasks, we tested the effects of manipulating non-diagnostic information on confidence, accuracy and response time (RT). In Experiment 1, participants viewed a dynamic grid consisting of flashing blue, orange and white pixels and indicated whether the stimulus was predominantly blue or orange (using a response scale ranging from low-confidence blue to high-confidence orange), with the white pixels constituting non-diagnostic information. Increasing non-diagnostic information reduced both confidence and accuracy, generally slowed RTs, and led to an increase in the speed of errors. Experiment 2 replicated these results for a decision-only task, providing further support for the doubt-scaling model of confidence.

Enabling witnesses to actively explore faces and reinstate study-test pose during a lineup increases discriminability.

Accurate witness identification is a cornerstone of police inquiries and national security investigations. However, witnesses can make errors. We experimentally tested whether an interactive lineup, a recently introduced procedure that enables witnesses to dynamically view and explore faces from different angles, improves the rate at which witnesses identify guilty over innocent suspects compared to procedures traditionally used by law enforcement. Participants encoded 12 target faces, either from the front or in profile view, and then attempted to identify the targets from 12 lineups, half of which were target present and the other half target absent. Participants were randomly assigned to a lineup condition: simultaneous interactive, simultaneous photo, or sequential video. In the front-encoding and profile-encoding conditions, Receiver Operating Characteristics analysis indicated that discriminability was higher in interactive compared to both photo and video lineups, demonstrating the benefit of actively exploring the lineup members' faces. Signal-detection modeling suggested interactive lineups increase discriminability because they afford the witness the opportunity to view more diagnostic features such that the nondiagnostic features play a proportionally lesser role. These findings suggest that eyewitness errors can be reduced using interactive lineups because they create retrieval conditions that enable witnesses to actively explore faces and more effectively sample features.

Calibration of cognitive tests to address the reliability paradox for decision-conflict tasks.

Standard, well-established cognitive tasks that produce reliable effects in group comparisons also lead to unreliable measurement when assessing individual differences. This reliability paradox has been demonstrated in decision-conflict tasks such as the Simon, Flanker, and Stroop tasks, which measure various aspects of cognitive control. We aim to address this paradox by implementing carefully calibrated versions of the standard tests with an additional manipulation to encourage processing of conflicting information, as well as combinations of standard tasks. Over five experiments, we show that a Flanker task and a combined Simon and Stroop task with the additional manipulation produced reliable estimates of individual differences in under 100 trials per task, which improves on the reliability seen in benchmark Flanker, Simon, and Stroop data. We make these tasks freely available and discuss both theoretical and applied implications regarding how the cognitive testing of individual differences is carried out.