2013scoboriafisicojepappdkencouraged.doc

Per within subjects anovas initial vs clarified

Info icon This preview shows pages 13–16. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
accuracy or correct responses. Per within subjects ANOVAs (initial vs. clarified responses), accuracy rates increased for answerable, F (1,75) = 6.43, p = .013, d = 0.18, and unanswerable questions, F (1,75) = 18.30, p < .001, d = 0.21. Turning to the types of DK responses (Table 3), encouraged participants made more ‘present not remembered’ responses to answerable questions than the other groups, F (2,69) = 5.09, p = .009, d = 0.77. When initial DK responses were controlled (via ANCOVA) this difference disappeared, indicating that this finding was partly due to the encouraged group having more opportunities to change responses. The fact that encouragement led primarily to appropriate responses rather than a mixture of appropriate and inappropriate responses suggests that clarification occurred strategically. Analysis of confidence ratings confirmed this interpretation: the encouraged group made significantly higher confidence ratings for ‘present
Image of page 13

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
ENCOURAGING AND CLARIFYING DON’T KNOW RESPONSES… 14 not remembered’ responses made to answerable questions than the other groups, t (49) = 3.73, p < .001, d = 1.07, and also when compared to their own ‘not in video’ statements, t (33) = 2.65, p = .012, d = 0.95. The groups did not differ in rates for the other types of DK responses to answerable questions, or in their rates of clarification for unanswerable questions. Diagnosticity of Responses An interesting question is to what extent these procedures promote meaningful gains in response quality. One way of assessing this is to evaluate the diagnosticity of responses. This addresses the question: when a substantive answer is provided, how diagnostic is it that the response is a correct answer made to an answerable question? Diagnosticity was calculated as: [answerable.correct/answerable.output]/[unanswerable.error/unanswerable.output] (answerable hit rate over the unanswerable false alarm rate; Wells & Lindsay, 1980; Weber & Perfect, 2011) for initial and clarified responses, which was log transformed (Agresti, 2002). We found main effects of group, F (2,75) = 3.31, p = .042, ω 2 = .06, and clarification, F (2,75) = 36.67, p < .001, η 2 = .02. Diagnosticity was higher following clarification ( d = 0.36) and when DK responding was encouraged ( d = 0.73, compared to the other groups). Ideally the diagnosticity of statements of non-occurrence would also be calculated. This was not possible because the number of ‘not present’ statements to answerable questions were insufficient. Study 1 Discussion This study shows that instructions about DK responses impact responding. Those encouraged to say DK reduced their output to avoid errors to answerable questions, and the fact that correct responses did not also decrease indicates that a DK response set was not promoted. The discouraged and control groups showed similar responses, indicating that controls assumed responses were desired. A majority of DK responses were clarified as correct statements about
Image of page 14
ENCOURAGING AND CLARIFYING DON’T KNOW RESPONSES… 15 the presence or non-presence of information. After clarification, the initial group differences in output disappeared and the encouraged group continued to show greater avoidance of errors.
Image of page 15

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 16
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.
  • Fall '17
  • Jane Moore
  • Centrifugation, Journal of Experimental Psychology, Fourteen unanswerable questions, dk responses, Alan Scoboria

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern