Abstract
In recognition memory experiments, the tendency to identify a test item as “old” or “new” can be increased or decreased by instructions given at test. The effect of such response bias on remember-know judgments is to change “remember” as well as “old” responses. Existing models of the remember-know paradigm (based on dual-process and signal detection theories) interpret this effect as a shift in response criteria, but differ on the nature of the dimension along which the changes take place. We extended the models to account simultaneously for remember-know and confidence rating data and tested them using old-new (Experiment 1) and remember-know (Experiment 2) rating designs. Quantitative fits show that the signal detection models provide the best overall description of the data.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC Psycholinguistic Database.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,33A, 497–505.
Diana, R. A., Reder, L. M., Arndt, J., &Park, H. (2006). Models of recognition: A review of arguments in favor of a dual-process account.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,13, 1–21.
Donaldson, W. (1996). The role of decision processes in remembering and knowing.Memory & Cognition,24, 523–533.
Dunn, J. C. (2004). Remember-know: A matter of confidence.Psychological Review,111, 524–542.
Dunn, J. C., &Kirsner, K. (1988). Discovering functionally independent mental processes: The principle of reversed association.Psychological Review,95, 91–101.
Gardiner, J. M., &Richardson-Klavehn, A. (2000). Remembering and knowing. In E. Tulving & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.),The Oxford handbook of memory (pp. 229–244). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gardiner, J. M., Richardson-Klavehn, A., &Ramponi, C. (1997). On reporting recollective experiences and “direct access to memory systems.”Psychological Science,8, 391–394.
Hicks, J. L., &Marsh, R. L. (1999). Remember-know judgments can depend on how memory is tested.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,6, 117–122.
Hirshman, E., &Henzler, A. (1998). The role of decision processes in conscious recollection.Psychological Science,9, 61–65.
Kučera, H., &Francis, W. N. (1967).Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Macmillan, N. A., &Creelman, C. D. (2005).Detection theory: A user’s guide (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Malmberg, K. J. (2002). On the form of ROCs constructed from confidence ratings.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,28, 380–387.
Mandler, G. (1980). Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence.Psychological Review,87, 252–271.
Myung, I. J., &Pitt, M. A. (2002). Mathematical modeling. In H. Pashler & J. [T.] Wixted (Eds.),Stevens’ Handbook of experimental psychology: Vol. 4. Methodology in experimental psychology (3rd ed., pp. 429–460). New York: Wiley.
Postma, A. (1999). The influence of decision criteria upon remembering and knowing in recognition memory.Acta Psychologica,103, 65–76.
Rajaram, S. (1993). Remembering and knowing: Two means of access to the personal past.Memory & Cognition,21, 89–102.
Ratcliff, R., Sheu, C.-F., &Gronlund, S. D. (1992). Testing global memory models using ROC curves.Psychological Review,99, 518–535.
Reder, L. M., Nhouyvanisvong, A., Schunn, C. D., Ayers, M. S., Angstadt, P., &Hiraki, K. (2000). A mechanistic account of the mirror effect for word frequency: A computational model of remember-know judgments in a continuous recognition paradigm.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 294–320.
Rotello, C. M., Macmillan, N. A., &Reeder, J. A. (2004). Sum-difference theory of remembering and knowing: A two-dimensional signal-detection model.Psychological Review,111, 588–616.
Rotello, C. M., Macmillan, N. A., Reeder, J. A., &Wong, M. (2005). The remember response: Subject to bias, graded, and not a process-pure indicator of recollection.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,12, 865–873.
Strack, F., &Förster, J. (1995). Reporting recollective experiences: Direct access to memory systems?Psychological Science,6, 352–358.
Stretch, V., &Wixted, J. T. (1998). Decision rules for recognition memory confidence judgments.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,24, 1397–1410.
Tulving, E. (1985). Memory and consciousness.Canadian Psychology,26, 1–12.
Wixted, J. T., &Stretch, V. (2004). In defense of the signal detection interpretation of remember/know judgments.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,11, 616–641.
Yonelinas, A. P. (1994). Receiver-operating characteristics in recognition memory: Evidence for a dual-process model.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 1341–1354.
Yonelinas, A. P. (1997). Recognition memory ROCs for item and associative information: The contribution of recollection and familiarity.Memory & Cognition,25, 747–763.
Yonelinas, A. P. (2001). Consciousness, control, and confidence: The 3 Cs of recognition memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,130, 361–379.
Yonelinas, A. P., Dobbins, I., Szymanski, M. D., Dhaliwal, H. S., &King, L. (1996). Signal-detection, threshold, and dual-process models of recognition memory: ROCs and conscious recollection.Consciousness & Cognition,5, 418–441.
Yonelinas, A. P., &Jacoby, L. L. (1995). The relation between remembering and knowing as bases for recognition: Effects of size congruency.Journal of Memory & Language,34, 622–643.
Yonelinas, A. P., Regehr, G., &Jacoby, L. L. (1995). Incorporating response bias in a dual-process theory of memory.Journal of Memory & Language,34, 821–835.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
C.M.R. and N.A.M. were supported by Grant R01 MH60274 from the National Institutes of Health.
Note—This article was accepted by the previous editorial team, when Colin M. MacLeod was Editor.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rotello, C.M., Macmillan, N.A., Hicks, J.L. et al. Interpreting the effects of response bias on remember-know judgments using signal detection and threshold models. Memory & Cognition 34, 1598–1614 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195923
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195923