IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0087512.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unpriming or Strategizing?: A Critique of Sparrow and Wegner

Author

Listed:
  • Miron Zuckerman
  • Jordan Silberman
  • Hoang Pham
  • Ista Zahn

Abstract

When asked to randomly select answer choices on easy multiple choice questions, people select more correct answers than expected by chance. Sparrow and Wegner showed that this tendency was eliminated if participants answered questions correctly before answering randomly. They argued that answering a question correctly unprimes the tendency to choose the correct answer, thereby reducing the correct response rate close to the chance level of.5. An alternative explanation, consistent with these results, is that answering questions correctly provides a baseline, which allows participants to strategize, i.e., to match and mismatch equal numbers of their purportedly random responses to the baseline response. Three studies showed that the presence of a baseline, even when unpriming is not feasible, led to lower correct response rates than those obtained in a condition in which no baseline was available. Furthermore, the presence of a baseline led to more nonrandom sequences of correct and incorrect responses. One specific sequence–alternating correct and incorrect answers–mediated the relation between the presence of a baseline and lower correct response rate. These findings suggest that strategizing, not unpriming, accounts for Sparrow and Wegner’s results.

Suggested Citation

  • Miron Zuckerman & Jordan Silberman & Hoang Pham & Ista Zahn, 2014. "Unpriming or Strategizing?: A Critique of Sparrow and Wegner," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-9, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0087512
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087512
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0087512
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0087512&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0087512?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0087512. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.