Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 367–373 | Cite as

Sources of confidence judgments in implicit cognition

Brief Reports


Subjective reports of confidence are frequently used as a measure of awareness in a variety of fields, including artificial grammar learning. However, little is known about what information is used to make confidence judgments and whether there are any possible sources of information used to discriminate between items that are unrelated to confidence. The data reported here replicate an earlier experiment by Vokey and Brooks (1992) and show that grammaticality decisions are based on both the grammatical status of items and their similarity to study exemplars. The key finding is that confidence ratings made on a continuous scale (50%—100%) are closely related to grammaticality but are unrelated to all of the measures of similarity that were tested. By contrast, confidence ratings made on a binary scale (high vs. low) are related to both grammaticality and similarity. The data confirm an earlier finding (Tunney & Shanks, 2003) that binary confidence ratings are more sensitive to low levels of awareness than continuous ratings are and suggest that participants are conscious of all the information acquired in artificial grammar learning.


  1. Chan, C. (1992).Implicit cognitive processes: Theoretical issues and applications in computer systems design. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  2. Cheesman, J., &Merikle, P. M. (1984). Priming with and without awareness.Perception & Psychophysics,36, 387–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dienes, Z. (1992). Connectionist and memory-array models of artificial grammar learning.Cognitive Science,16, 41–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dienes, Z., &Altmann, G. T. M. (1997). Transfer of implicit knowledge across domains: How implicit and how abstract? In D. C. Berry (Ed.),How implicit is implicit learning? (pp. 107–123). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dienes, Z., Altmann, G. T. M., Kwan, L., &Goode, A. (1995). Unconscious knowledge of artificial grammars is applied strategically.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 1322–1338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dienes, Z., &Berry, D. (1997). Implicit learning: Below the subjective threshold.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,4, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dulany, D. E., Carlson, R. A., &Dewey, G. I. (1984). A case of syntactical learning and judgment: How conscious and how abstract?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,113, 541–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eriksen, C. W. (1960). Discrimination and learning without awareness: A methodological survey and evaluation.Psychological Review,67, 279–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Higham, P. A. (1997a). Chunks are not enough: The insufficiency of feature frequency-based explanations of artificial grammar learning.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,51, 126–137.Google Scholar
  10. Higham, P. A. (1997b). Dissociations of grammaticality and specific similarity effects in artificial grammar learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 1029–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Higham, P. A., Vokey, J. R., &Pritchard, J. L. (2000). Beyond dissociation logic: Evidence for controlled and automatic processing in artificial grammar learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,129, 457–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnstone, T., &Shanks, D. R. (1999). Two mechanisms in implicit artificial grammar learning? Comment on Meulemans and Van der Linden (1997).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,25, 524–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnstone, T., &Shanks, D. R. (2001). Abstractionist and processing accounts of implicit learning.Cognitive Psychology,42, 61–112.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kinder, A., &Shanks, D. R. S. (2001). Amnesia and the declarative/ nondeclarative distinction: A recurrent network model of classification, recognition, and repetition priming.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,13, 648–669.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Knowlton, B. J., Ramus, S. J., &Squire, L. R. (1992). Intact artificial grammar learning in amnesia: Dissociation of classification learning and explicit memory for specific instances.Psychological Science,3, 172–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Knowlton, B. J., &Squire, L. R. (1994). The information acquired during artificial grammar learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kunimoto, C., Miller, J., &Pashler, H. (2001). Confidence and accuracy of near-threshold discrimination responses.Consciousness & Cognition,10, 294–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McAndrews, M. P., &Moscovitch, M. (1985). Rule-based and exemplar-based classification in artificial grammar learning.Memory & Cognition,13, 469–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meulemans, T., &Van der Linden, M. (1997). Associative chunk strength in artificial grammar learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 1007–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Peirce, C. S., &Jastrow, J. (1884). On small differences of sensation.Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences,3, 75–83.Google Scholar
  21. Perruchet, P. (1994). Defining the knowledge units of a synthetic language: Comment on Vokey and Brooks (1992).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 223–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Perruchet, P., &Pacteau, C. (1990). Synthetic grammar learning: Implicit rule abstraction or explicit fragmentary knowledge?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,119, 264–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pothos, E. M., &Bailey, T. M. (2000). The role of similarity in artificial grammar learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 847–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reber, A. S. (1967). Implicit learning of artificial grammars.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,6, 855–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shanks, D. R., & St.John, M. F. (1994). Characteristics of dissociable human learning systems.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,17, 367–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tunney, R. J., &Altmann, G. T. M. (1999). The transfer effect in artificial grammar learning: Reappraising the evidence on the transfer of sequential dependencies.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,25, 1322–1333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tunney, R. J., &Shanks, D. R. (2003). Subjective measures of awareness and implicit cognition.Memory & Cognition,31, 1060–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vokey, J. R., &Brooks, L. R. (1992). Salience of item knowledge in learning artificial grammars.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 328–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yonelinas, A. P. (1997). Recognition memory ROCs for item and associative information: The contribution of recollection and familiarity.Memory & Cognition,25, 747–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamEngland

Personalised recommendations