Literature DB >> 28762029

Response biases in simple decision making: Faster decision making, faster response execution, or both?

Jeffrey J Starns1,2, Qiuli Ma3.   

Abstract

When people are biased to use one response more often than an alternative response in a decision task, they also make the preferred response more quickly. Sequential sampling models can accommodate this difference in response time (RT) by changing the relative amount of evidence that must accumulate to decide in favor of one versus the other response, but nondecision processes might also play a role, such as the amount of time between selecting and executing a response. We investigated the influence of decision and nondecision processes in two experiments. In Experiments 1a and 1b, arrows appeared on the screen, and participants were asked to move a joystick in the direction of the arrow or make a keypress as quickly as possible. Results showed that motor execution times were faster for expected directions than unexpected directions. In Experiments 2a and 2b, participants decided whether a high or low number of asterisks was displayed on the screen. Decision times were faster for the stimulus class that was more likely to appear, and this effect was larger when participants could anticipate both the likely stimulus class and the motor response needed to identify it than when they knew the likely stimulus class but the associated motor response changed probabilistically from trial to trial. These results show that both decision and nondecision factors contribute to bias effects on RT.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Nondecision time; Response biases; Response time; Sequential sampling models

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 28762029     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-017-1358-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  9 in total

1.  The effects of aging on reaction time in a signal detection task.

Authors:  R Ratcliff; A Thapar; G McKoon
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2001-06

2.  Evaluating the unequal-variance and dual-process explanations of zROC slopes with response time data and the diffusion model.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Starns; Roger Ratcliff; Gail McKoon
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2011-11-11       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time.

Authors:  Roger Ratcliff; Philip L Smith
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 8.934

4.  Factoring out nondecision time in choice reaction time data: Theory and implications.

Authors:  Stijn Verdonck; Francis Tuerlinckx
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2015-12-07       Impact factor: 8.934

5.  Interpreting the parameters of the diffusion model: an empirical validation.

Authors:  Andreas Voss; Klaus Rothermund; Jochen Voss
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2004-10

Review 6.  The diffusion decision model: theory and data for two-choice decision tasks.

Authors:  Roger Ratcliff; Gail McKoon
Journal:  Neural Comput       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 2.026

7.  Separating response-execution bias from decision bias: arguments for an additional parameter in Ratcliff's diffusion model.

Authors:  Andreas Voss; Jochen Voss; Karl Christoph Klauer
Journal:  Br J Math Stat Psychol       Date:  2009-12-23       Impact factor: 3.380

8.  Differentiation and response bias in episodic memory: evidence from reaction time distributions.

Authors:  Amy H Criss
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 3.051

9.  Diffusion model drift rates can be influenced by decision processes: an analysis of the strength-based mirror effect.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Starns; Roger Ratcliff; Corey N White
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2012-04-30       Impact factor: 3.051

  9 in total
  1 in total

1.  Are you confident enough to act? Individual differences in action control are associated with post-decisional metacognitive bias.

Authors:  Wojciech Zajkowski; Maksymilian Bielecki; Magdalena Marszał-Wiśniewska
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-06-01       Impact factor: 3.752

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.