Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 543–548 | Cite as

The dud-alternative effect in memory for associations: Putting confidence into local context

  • Maciej Hanczakowski
  • Katarzyna Zawadzka
  • Philip A. Higham
Brief Report

Abstract

When participants are asked to provide confidence judgments for each provided alternative in a multiple-choice memory task, such judgments are inflated if the assessed alternatives are accompanied by an implausible (dud) alternative. This finding, termed the dud-alternative effect, has been recently documented in a memory setting with a lineup procedure (Charman, Wells, & Joy, Law & Human Behavior 35:479–500 2011). In the present study, we developed a novel paradigm to investigate the dud-alternative effect in memory. The paradigm utilizes a multiple-choice associative recognition task in which dud alternatives can be rejected on the basis of their unfamiliarity. In two experiments, we demonstrated a reliable dud-alternative effect with our novel procedure. The results demonstrated that the dud-alternative effect in episodic memory is not limited to tasks based on perceptual factors, but is a general phenomenon concerning confidence judgments.

Keywords

Duds Confidence Recognition Metacognition 

Notes

Author Note

The authors thank Dylan Jones for helpful comments while developing this project.

References

  1. Charman, S. D., Wells, G. L., & Joy, S. W. (2011). The dud effect: Adding highly dissimilar fillers increases confidence in lineup identifications. Law & Human Behavior, 35, 479–500. doi: 10.1007/s10979-010-9261-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clark, S. E. (1997). A familiarity-based account of confidence-accuracy inversions in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 232–238. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.23.1.232 Google Scholar
  3. Kelley, R., & Wixted, J. T. (2001). On the nature of associative information in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 701–722. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.27.3.701 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Tulving, E. (1981). Similarity relations in recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 479–496. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90129-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327–352. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1130. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Verde, M. F. (2004). Associative interference in recognition memory: A dual-process account. Memory & Cognition, 32, 1273–1283. doi: 10.3758/BF03206318 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Windschitl, P. D., & Chambers, J. R. (2004). The dud-alternative effect in likelihood judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 198–215. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.30.1.198 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maciej Hanczakowski
    • 1
  • Katarzyna Zawadzka
    • 2
  • Philip A. Higham
    • 2
  1. 1.School of PsychologyCardiff UniversityCardiffUK
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations