IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jdm/journl/v6y2011i7p651-687.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What cognitive processes drive response biases? A diffusion model analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Fabio P. Leite
  • Roger Ratcliff

Abstract

We used a diffusion model to examine the effects of response-bias manipulations on response time (RT) and accuracy data collected in two experiments involving a two-choice decision making task. We asked 18 subjects to respond ``low'' or ``high'' to the number of asterisks in a 10x10 grid, based on an experimenter-determined decision cutoff. In the model, evidence is accumulated until either a ``low'' or ``high'' decision criterion is reached, and this, in turn, initiates a response. We performed two experiments with four experimental conditions. In conditions 1 and 2, the decision cutoff between low and high judgments was fixed at 50. In condition 1, we manipulated the frequency with which low- and high-stimuli were presented. In condition 2, we used payoff structures that mimicked the frequency manipulation. We found that manipulating stimulus frequency resulted in a larger effect on RT and accuracy than did manipulating payoff structure. In the model, we found that manipulating stimulus frequency produced greater changes in the starting point of the evidence accumulation process than did manipulating payoff structure. In conditions 3 and 4, we set the decision cutoff at 40, 50, or 60 (Experiment 1) and at 45 or 55 (Experiment 2). In condition 3, there was an equal number of low- and high-stimuli, whereas in condition 4 there were unequal proportions of low- and high-stimuli. The model analyses showed that starting-point changes accounted for biases produced by changes in stimulus proportions, whereas evidence biases accounted for changes in the decision cutoff.

Suggested Citation

  • Fabio P. Leite & Roger Ratcliff, 2011. "What cognitive processes drive response biases? A diffusion model analysis," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(7), pages 651-687, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:jdm:journl:v:6:y:2011:i:7:p:651-687
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://journal.sjdm.org/11/11125a/jdm11125a.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://journal.sjdm.org/11/11125a/jdm11125a.html
    Download Restriction: no

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jdm:journl:v:6:y:2011:i:7:p:651-687. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jonathan Baron). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.