Top

Gepubliceerd in:

03-08-2017 | Original Article

Why free choices take longer than forced choices: evidence from response threshold manipulations

Auteurs: Christoph Naefgen, Michael Dambacher, Markus Janczyk

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 6/2018

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.

vorige artikel Destination memory: the relationship between memory and social cognition

volgende artikel Author Correction: Why free choices take longer than forced choices: evidence from response threshold manipulations

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

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.

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

Brass, M., & Haggard, P. (2008). The what, when, whether model of intentional action. The Neuroscientist, 14(4), 319–325. doi:10.1177/1073858408317417.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

Dambacher, M., & Hübner, R. (2015). Time pressure affects the efficiency of perceptual processing in decisions under conflict. Psychological Research, 79(1), 83–94.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Gordon, I. E. (1967). Stimulus probability and simple reaction time. Nature, 215(5103), 895–896. doi:10.1038/215895a0.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

Grice, R. (1968). Stimulus intensity and response evocation. Psychological Review, 75(5), 359–373. doi:10.1037/h0026287.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

Janczyk, M. (2016). Die Rolle von Handlungszielen bei der Entstehung von Doppelaufgabenkosten. Psychologische Rundschau, 67, 237–249. doi:10.1026/0033-3042/a000324.CrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

Kleinsorge, T. (1999). Response repetition benefits and costs. Acta Psychologica, 103(3), 295–310. doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00047-5.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

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.PubMed

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.PubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.PubMed

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Why free choices take longer than forced choices: evidence from response threshold manipulations
Auteurs: Christoph Naefgen
Michael Dambacher
Markus Janczyk
Publicatiedatum: 03-08-2017
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 6/2018
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0887-1

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2018

Perceptual similarity induces overinvestment in an attentional blink task

Synchronization to metrical levels in music depends on low-frequency spectral components and tempo

Destination memory: the relationship between memory and social cognition

Intentional binding of two effects

Are young children able to learn exploratory strategies by observation?

Author Correction: Why free choices take longer than forced choices: evidence from response threshold manipulations