Abstract
Response times (RTs) for free choice tasks are usually longer than those for forced choice tasks. We examined the cause for this difference in a study with intermixed free and forced choice trials, and adopted the rationale of sequential sampling frameworks to test two alternative accounts: Longer RTs in free choices are caused (1) by lower rates of information accumulation, or (2) by additional cognitive processes that delay the start of information accumulation. In three experiments, we made these accounts empirically discriminable by manipulating decision thresholds via the frequency of catch trials (Exp. 1) or via inducing time pressure (Exp. 2 and 3). Our results supported the second account, suggesting a temporal delay of information accumulation in free choice tasks, while the accumulation rate remains comparable. We propose that response choice in both tasks relies on information accumulation towards a specific goal. While in forced choice tasks, this goal is externally determined by the stimulus, in free choice tasks, it needs to be generated internally, which requires additional time.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Change history
11 October 2017
The authors regret that some errors that had been addressed during the proofing process were not corrected by the publisher. Most of these errors are of a stylistic nature and do not change the substance of the article. Please note, however, that the corresponding author’s e-mail address is christoph.naefgen@uni-tuebingen.de. We apologize for any inconvenience caused by this.
Notes
It should be noted that this freedom of choice is often constrained to some degree by instructions such as “choose both response options about equally often”.
Mattler and Palmer (2012) also used a sequential sampling approach to investigate how priming affects performance and choices in both types of tasks. They observed that while masked primes always influence forced choice RTs, free choices are not influenced when the stimuli (prime and target) are of arbitrary shape. They also specified an accumulator model to explain the data, with the notable assumption of rapidly shrinking threshold separations after onset of a free choice stimulus. In their paper, they conclude that forced choice priming is a result of the integration of the automatic processing of primes and evidence from the stimulus while free choice priming is based on the integration of “external stimulation by the prime and internal response tendencies” (p.359).
A similar observation with PEs increasing descriptively with the amount of catch-trials can be seen in the condition with low intensity stimuli in the study by Seibold et al. (2011; see their Fig. 4).
To correct the effect size entered into GPower, we used the method described by Rasch, Friese, Hofmann, and Naumann (2010).
We thank one of the reviewers for this suggestion.
References
Arnold, N. R., Bröder, A., & Bayen, U. J. (2015). Empirical validation of the diffusion model for recognition memory and a comparison of parameter-estimation methods. Psychological Research, 79(5), 882–898. doi:10.1007/s00426-014-0608-y.
Ayton, P., & Fischer, I. (2004). The hot hand fallacy and the gambler’s fallacy: Two faces of subjective randomness? Memory & Cognition, 32(8), 1369–1378. doi:10.3758/BF03206327.
Bar-Hillel, M., & Wagenaar, W. A. (1991). The perception of randomness. Advances in Applied Mathematics, 12(4), 428–454. doi:10.1016/0196-8858(91)90029-I.
Bausenhart, K. M., Rolke, B., Seibold, V. C., & Ulrich, R. (2010). Temporal preparation influences the dynamics of information processing: Evidence for early onset of information accumulation. Vision Research, 50(11), 1025–1034. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2010.03.011.
Berlyne, D. E. (1957). Conflict and choice time. British Journal of Psychology, 48(2), 106–118. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1957.tb00606.x.
Brass, M., & Haggard, P. (2008). The what, when, whether model of intentional action. The Neuroscientist, 14(4), 319–325. doi:10.1177/1073858408317417.
Brysbaert, M. (1994). Behavioral estimates of interhemispheric transmission time and the signal detection method: A reappraisal. Perception & Psychophysics, 56(4), 479–490. doi:10.3758/BF03206739.
Dambacher, M., & Hübner, R. (2015). Time pressure affects the efficiency of perceptual processing in decisions under conflict. Psychological Research, 79(1), 83–94.
Diederich, A. (1997). Dynamic stochastic models for decision making under time constraints. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 41(3), 260–274. doi:10.1006/jmps.1997.1167.
Dror, I. E., Basola, B., & Busemeyer, J. R. (1999). Decision making under time pressure: An independent test of sequential sampling models. Memory & Cognition, 27(4), 713–725. doi:10.3758/BF03211564.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
Forstmann, B. U., Dutilh, G., Brown, S., Neumann, J., von Cramon, D. Y., Ridderinkhof, K. R., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2008). Striatum and pre-SMA facilitate decision-making under time pressure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(45), 17538–17542. doi:10.1073/pnas.0805903105.
Gaschler, R., & Nattkemper, D. (2012). Instructed task demands and utilization of action effect anticipation. Frontiers in Cognition, 3, 578. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00578.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493–503.
Gordon, I. E. (1967). Stimulus probability and simple reaction time. Nature, 215(5103), 895–896. doi:10.1038/215895a0.
Greenwald, A. G. (1970). Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: With special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. Psychological Review, 77(2), 73–99. doi:10.1037/h0028689.
Grice, R. (1968). Stimulus intensity and response evocation. Psychological Review, 75(5), 359–373. doi:10.1037/h0026287.
Grice, G. R., Nullmeyer, R., & Spiker, V. A. (1982). Human reaction time: Toward a general theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111(1), 135–153. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.111.1.135.
Hanoch, Y., Wood, S., Barnes, A., Liu, P.-J., & Rice, T. (2011). Choosing the right medicare prescription drug plan: The effect of age, strategy selection, and choice set size. Health Psychology, 30(6), 719–727. doi:10.1037/a0023951.
Harleß, E. (1861). Der Apparat des Willens. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 38, 50–73.
Herwig, A., Prinz, W., & Waszak, F. (2007). Two modes of sensorimotor integration in intention-based and stimulus-based actions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(11), 1540–1554. doi:10.1080/17470210601119134.
Herwig, A., & Waszak, F. (2009). Intention and attention in ideomotor learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(2), 219–227. doi:10.1080/17470210802373290.
Herwig, A., & Waszak, F. (2012). Action-effect bindings and ideomotor learning in intention- and stimulus-based actions. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 444. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00444.
Heuer, H., Janczyk, M., & Kunde, W. (2010). Random noun generation in younger and older adults. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(3), 465–478. doi:10.1080/17470210902974138.
Janczyk, M. (2013). Level-2 perspective taking entails two processes: Evidence from PRP experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1878–1887. doi:10.1037/a0033336.
Janczyk, M. (2016). Die Rolle von Handlungszielen bei der Entstehung von Doppelaufgabenkosten. Psychologische Rundschau, 67, 237–249. doi:10.1026/0033-3042/a000324.
Janczyk, M. (2017). A common capacity limitation for response and item selection in working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. doi:10.1037/xlm0000408.
Janczyk, M., Dambacher, M., Bieleke, M., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2015). The benefit of no choice: goal-directed plans enhance perceptual processing. Psychological Research, 79(2), 206–220. doi:10.1007/s00426-014-0549-5.
Janczyk, M., Durst, M., & Ulrich, R. (2017). Action selection by temporally distal goal states. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 467–473. doi:10.3758/s13423-016-1096-4.
Janczyk, M., Nolden, S., & Jolicoeur, P. (2015). No differences in dual-task costs between forced- and free-choice tasks. Psychological Research, 79(3), 463–477. doi:10.1007/s00426-014-0580-6.
Janczyk, M., Pfister, R., Crognale, M. A., & Kunde, W. (2012). Effective rotations: Action effects determine the interplay of mental and manual rotations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3), 489–501. doi:10.1037/a0026997.
Janczyk, M., Pfister, R., Hommel, B., & Kunde, W. (2014). Who is talking in backward crosstalk? Disentangling response- from goal-conflict in dual-task performance. Cognition, 132(1), 30–43. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.001.
Janczyk, M., Pfister, R., & Kunde, W. (2012). On the persistence of tool-based compatibility effects. Journal of Psychology, 220(1), 16–22. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000086.
Janczyk, M., Skirde, S., Weigelt, M., & Kunde, W. (2009). Visual and tactile action effects determine bimanual coordination performance. Human Movement Science, 28(4), 437–449. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2009.02.006.
Keller, P. E., Wascher, E., Prinz, W., Waszak, F., Koch, I., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2006). Differences between intention-based and stimulus-based actions. Journal of Psychophysiology, 20(1), 9–20. doi:10.1027/0269-8803.20.1.9.
Kleinsorge, T. (1999). Response repetition benefits and costs. Acta Psychologica, 103(3), 295–310. doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00047-5.
Kühn, S., Elsner, B., Prinz, W., & Brass, M. (2009). Busy doing nothing: Evidence for nonaction-effect binding. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(3), 542–549. doi:10.3758/PBR.16.3.542.
Kunde, W. (2001). Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(2), 387–394. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.27.2.387.
Kunde, W., Pfister, R., & Janczyk, M. (2012). The locus of tool-transformation costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(3), 703–714. doi:10.1037/a0026315.
Mattler, U., & Palmer, S. (2012). Time course of free-choice priming effects explained by a simple accumulator model. Cognition, 123(3), 347–360. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.002.
Merkel, J. (1885). Die zeitlichen Verhältnisse der Willensthätigkeit. Philosophische Studien, 2, 73–127.
Miller, J., & Reynolds, A. (2003). The locus of redundant-targets and nontargets effects: evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(6), 1126–1142. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.29.6.1126.
Näätänen, R. (1972). Time uncertainty and occurence uncertainty of the stimulus in a simple reaction time task. Acta Psychologica, 36(6), 492–503. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(72)90029-7.
Passingham, R. E., Bengtsson, S. L., & Lau, H. C. (2010). Medial frontal cortex: From self-generated action to reflection on one’s own performance. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(1), 16–21. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.11.001.
Pfister, R., & Janczyk, M. (2013). Confidence intervals for two sample means: Calculation, interpretation, and a few simple rules. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 9(2), 74–80. doi:10.2478/v10053-008-0133-x.
Pfister, R., Kiesel, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2011). Learning at any rate: Action–effect learning for stimulus-based actions. Psychological Research, 75(1), 61–65. doi:10.1007/s00426-010-0288-1.
Pfister, R., Kiesel, A., & Melcher, T. (2010). Adaptive control of ideomotor effect anticipations. Acta Psychologica, 135(3), 316–322. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.08.006.
Rae, B., Heathcote, A., Donkin, C., Averell, L., & Brown, S. (2014). The Hare and the Tortoise: Emphasizing speed can change the evidence used to make decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(5), 1226–1243. doi:10.1037/a0036801.
Rasch, B., Friese, M., Hofmann, W., & Naumann, E. (2010). G*Power-Ergänzungen. Retrieved from http://quantitative-methoden.de/Dateien/Auflage3/Band_II/Kapitel_7_GPower_Ergaenzungen_A3.pdf.
Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85(2), 59–108. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.85.2.59.
Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (2008). The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Computation, 20(4), 873–922. doi:10.1162/neco.2008.12-06-420.
Ratcliff, R., Smith, P. L., Brown, S. D., & McKoon, G. (2016). Diffusion decision model: Current issues and history. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(4), 260–281. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.01.007.
Rinkenauer, G., Osman, A., Ulrich, R., Müller-Gethmann, H., & Mattes, S. (2004). On the locus of speed-accuracy trade-off in reaction time: Inferences from the lateralized readiness potential. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 261–282. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.261.
Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 207–231. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.124.2.207.
Schweickert, R. (1978). A critical path generalization of the additive factor method: Analysis of a Stroop task. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 18(2), 105–139. doi:10.1016/0022-2496(78)90059-7.
Seibold, V. C., Bausenhart, K. M., Rolke, B., & Ulrich, R. (2011). Does temporal preparation increase the rate of sensory information accumulation? Acta Psychologica, 137(1), 56–64. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.02.006.
Shin, Y. K., Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (2010). A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 943–974. doi:10.1037/a0020541.
Stock, A., & Stock, C. (2004). A short history of ideo-motor action. Psychological Research, 68(2–3), 176–188. doi:10.1007/s00426-003-0154-5.
Wagenmakers, E. J., Van Der Maas, H. L., & Grasman, R. P. (2007). An EZ-diffusion model for response time and accuracy. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(1), 3–22. doi:10.3758/BF03194023.
Waszak, F., Wascher, E., Keller, P., Koch, I., Aschersleben, G., Rosenbaum, D. A., & Prinz, W. (2005). Intention-based and stimulus-based mechanisms in action selection. Experimental Brain Research, 162(3), 346–356. doi:10.1007/s00221-004-2183-8.
Wolfensteller, U., & Ruge, H. (2011). On the timescale of stimulus-based action–effect learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(7), 1273–1289. doi:10.1080/17470218.2010.546417.
Acknowledgements
Work of MJ is supported by the Institutional Strategy of the University of Tübingen (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft/German Research Foundation ZUK 63). Furthermore, this work was supported by Grant JA2307/1-2 from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft/German Research Council awarded to MJ. We thank Dirk Vorberg and an anonymous reviewer for very helpful and constructive comments on a previous version of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
In this appendix, we report the results from a diffusion model analysis on the forced choice data from Experiments 1–3. EZ (Wagenmakers et al., 2007) was used to extract parameters for every participant and relevant experimental condition (i.e., excluding the 0% catch-trial condition of Experiment 1 and excluding the pre-experimental blocks of Experiments 2 and 3) for each experiment. Tables 3, 4, 5 summarize the resulting means and standard deviations for drift rates, response thresholds, and non-accumulation times. The parameters were submitted to ANOVAs with block type as a repeated-measures factor. Greenhouse–Geisser corrected p values are reported when the sphericity assumption was violated (in this case, the respective ε is reported, as well). In case a participant made no mistakes in a given condition, the edge correction proposed by Wagenmakers et al. (2007) was performed, in which, essentially, the sum of errors is changed from zero errors to half an error.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Naefgen, C., Dambacher, M. & Janczyk, M. Why free choices take longer than forced choices: evidence from response threshold manipulations. Psychological Research 82, 1039–1052 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0887-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0887-1