Using the regulation of accuracy to study performance when the correct answer is not known

Abstract

We examined memory performance in multiple-choice questions when correct answers were not always present. How do participants answer when they are aware that the correct alternative may not be present? To answer this question we allowed participants to decide on the number of alternatives in their final answer (the plurality option), and whether they wanted to report or withhold their answer (report option). We also studied the memory benefits when both the plurality and the report options were available. In two experiments participants watched a crime and then answered questions with five alternatives. Half of the questions were presented with the correct alternative and half were not. Participants selected one alternative and rated confidence, then selected three alternatives and again rated confidence, and finally indicated whether they preferred the answer with one or with three alternatives (plurality option). Lastly, they decided whether to report or withhold the answer (report option). Results showed that participants' confidence in their selections was higher, that they chose more single answers, and that they preferred to report more often when the correct alternative was presented. We also attempted to classify a posteriori questions as either presented with or without the correct alternative from participants' selection. Classification was better than chance, and encouraging, but the forensic application of the classification technique is still limited since there was a large percentage of responses that were incorrectly classified. Our results also showed that the memory benefits of both plurality and report options overlap.

Deliberative process in sharing information with different audiences: Eye-tracking correlates

“…In relation to the type of answer requested, we implemented in one step (see Figure 1) the combination of the plurality option (Luna, et al, 2011) along with the report option (Koriat & Goldsmith, 1994), and only the eye-tracking measures during the selection of these combined answers were the object of our analysis. Both plurality and report options are procedures used to study the informativeness-accuracy trade-off in memory reporting (Luna & Martín-Luengo, 2017;Martín-Luengo et al, 2018;Martín-Luengo et al, 2021). In case of the plurality option, participants are first requested to select or provide one candidate answer (i.e., single answer) and then to add more alternatives conforming to the plural answer.…”

“…Therefore, we decided to combine them in order to offer participants the widest possible (but still fully controlled in counterbalanced fashion) set of answer alternatives: single report, single withhold, plural report, plural withhold. This is not the first experiment where plurality and report options are used at in one experiment (Luna & Martín-Luengo, 2017;Martín-Luengo et al, 2018), but this is the first time both tasks are used in a single step. Despite this methodological alteration, we do not expect to find any major difference in the distribution of the answers among the four options.…”

Conversational Pragmatics: Memory Reporting Strategies in Different Social Contexts

“…Otherwise, it is withheld.1 1 If the criteria are not met, then the information can also be modified and a new comparison against criteria is made. There are several modifications that can be made depending on the nature of the information (see for example, Luna and Martín-Luengo, 2017; see also Goldsmith, 2016, for a review), but here we will focus in the report option and the decision to report or withhold an answer.…”

Do incompatible alternatives in a testimony affect witness credibility?

“…The regulation of accuracy refers to people's ability to modify or alter some dimensions of their discourse to maximize their accuracy (Luna & Martín‐Luengo, ). For example, a witness may think that she is not certain enough about a given piece of information and, thus, may decide not to report it (i.e., the report option, Higham, Luna, & Bloomfield, ).…”

“…In the typical version of the procedure, participants are requested to (a) select one alternative (specific answer), (b) select three alternatives (generic answer), and (c) select which answer, specific or generic, they would prefer to provide were they in court. Research has shown that allowing participants to decide the number of alternatives in their response increases the accuracy of their final report, not only in eyewitness settings (Luna et al, , ; Luna & Martín‐Luengo, , , ), but also in educational contexts (Higham, ), and in conversational exchanges (Martín‐Luengo, Shtyrov, Luna, & Myachykov, ).…”