The belief bias effect is aptly named: A reply to Klauer and Kellen (2011).

In “Assessing the Belief Bias Effect With ROCs: It's a Response Bias Effect,” Dube, Rotello, and Heit (see record 2010-14834-005) examined the form of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for reasoning and the effects of belief bias on measurement indices that differ in whether they imply a curved or linear ROC function. We concluded that the ROC data are in fact curved and that analyses using statistics that assume a linear ROC are likely to produce Type I errors. Importantly, we showed that the interaction between logic and belief that has inspired much of the theoretical work on belief bias is in fact an error stemming from inappropriate reliance on a contrast (hit rate?false alarm rate) that implies linear ROCs. Dube et al. advanced a new model of belief bias, which, in light of their data, is currently the only plausible account of the effect. Klauer and Kellen (2011) disputed these conclusions, largely on the basis of speculation about the data collection method used by Dube et al. to construct the ROCs. New data and model-based analyses are presented that refute the speculations made by Klauer and Kellen. We also show that new modeling results presented by Klauer and Kellen actually support the conclusions advanced by Dube et al. Together, these data show that the methods used by Dube et al. are valid and that the belief bias effect is simply a response bias effect. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Response bias and the process-dissociation procedure.

Two different approaches for treating response bias in the process-dissociation procedure were assessed: a multinomial approach proposed by A. Buchner et al (see record 1995-31816-001) and a dual-process, signal-detection approach proposed by A. P. Yonelinas et al (see record 1996-29360-001). The authors examined data presented by Buchner et al and found that, although the signal-detection-based model worked slightly better than the multinomial model, the data did not provide a strong test of either model. However, an examination of other recognition data showed that the multinomial model produced distorted estimates of recollection and familiarity, and it was unable to account for observed receiver operating characteristics (ROCs). In contrast, the dual-process, signal detection model produced unbiased estimates and was able to account for the observed ROCs. The authors also provide an overview of the general controversy surrounding the process-dissociation approach. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The validity and appropriateness of methods, analyses, and conclusions in Rind et al. (1998): A rebuttal of victimological critique from Ondersma et al. (2001) and Dallam et al. (2001).

The authors respond to 2 victimological critiques of their 1998 meta-analysis on child sexual abuse (CSA). S. J. Dallam et al. (see record 2001-05308-002) (2001) claimed that B. Rind, P. Tromovitch, and R. Bauserman (see record 1998-04232-002) (1998) committed numerous methodological and statistical errors, and often miscoded and misinterpreted data. The authors show all these claims to be invalid. To the contrary, they demonstrate frequent bias in Dallam et al.'s criticisms. S. J. Ondersma et al. (see record 2001-05308-001) (2001) claimed that Rind et al.'s study is part of a backlash against psychotherapists, that its suggestions regarding CSA definitions were extrascientific, and that the moral standard is needed to understand CSA scientifically. The authors show their suggestions to have been scientific and argue that it is Ondersma et al.'s issue-framing and moral standard that are extrascientific. This reply supports the original methods, analyses, recommendations, and conclusions of Rind et al. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Validity of the salience asymmetry account of the Implicit Association Test: Reply to Greenwald, Nosek, Banaji, and Klauer (2005).

In their comment on K. Rothermund and D. Wentura (see record 2004-14313-001), A. G. Greenwald, B. A. Nosek, M. R. Banaji, and K. C. Klauer (see record 2005-09704-008) agreed that salience asymmetries can be a source of Implicit Association Test (IAT) effects. The authors applaud this conclusion but point to problems with the other points that Greenwald et al. made. The authors have difficulties understanding the nominal feature account that Greenwald et al. put forward and have doubts about the usefulness of their broad conception of the concept association. The authors also argue that existing evidence concerning the construct validity of the IAT does not allow one to discriminate between the association and the salience accounts. In addition, the new studies that were presented by Greenwald et al. do not provide insights into what the IAT measures because they are either irrelevant for a decision between the different accounts or contain methodological problems that prevent a meaningful interpretation in terms of the models. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"Response bias and the process-dissociation procedure": Correction to Yonelinas and Jacoby (1996).

Reports an error in the original article by A. P. Yonelinas and L. L. Jacoby (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1996, Vol 125[4], 422–434). On page 433, Appendix A, the equations were presented incorrectly. The correct reading of the equations is provided. (The following abstract of this article originally appeared in record 84-06353.) Two different approaches for treating response bias in the process-dissociation procedure were assessed: a multinomial approach proposed by A. Buchner et al (see record 1995-31816-001) and a dual-process, signal-detection approach proposed by A. P. Yonelinas et al (see record 1996-29360-001). The authors examined data presented by Buchner et al and found that, although the signal-detection-based model worked slightly better than the multinomial model, the data did not provide a strong test of either model. However, an examination of other recognition data showed that the multinomial model produced distorted estimates of recollection and familiarity, and it was unable to account for observed receiver operating characteristics (ROCs). In contrast, the dual-process, signal detection model produced unbiased estimates and was able to account for the observed ROCs.… (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The locus of orthographic-phonological facilitation: Reply to Roelofs, Meyer, and Levelt (1996).

In their comment, A. Roelofs, A. S. Meyer, and W. J. M. Levelt (see record 1997-06337-001) argued that serial-access language production models predict an interaction between semantic and orthographic-phonological variables in picture–word tasks. In this reply, the authors first show that this position conflicts with Roelofs et al.'s previous work and conclude that the model presented in the comment is a modification of Roelofs' (1992a, 1992b) original model. Next, they present 3 arguments against this new model. First, Roelofs et al. did not provide independent empirical evidence in favor of their modification. Second, contrary to Roelofs et al.'s prediction, the reduction of semantic interference appears to be independent of the percentage of shared orthography. Third, Roelofs et al.'s model predicts early phonological effects of spoken-word distractors, a prediction that is refuted by time-course data reported by H. Schriefers, A. S. Meyer, and W. J. M. Levelt (see record 1990-16319-001). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Partial support from a nonreplication: Comment on Roma, Silberberg, Ruggiero, and Suomi (2006).

A purported replication by P. G. Roma, A. Silberberg, A. M. Ruggiero, and S. J. Suomi (see record 2006-03207-008) of the authors' previous study (see record 2003-08401-002) claims to contradict their finding that capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) refuse to exchange with an experimenter if their partner receives a superior reward. Roma et al. used no exchange task, however, or any other task. Roma et al. offered frustration as explanation of their findings, yet failed to statistically prove that the effect of frustration is stronger than that of inequity. They also misrepresented the dependent measure of the authors' study. Reanalysis of the authors' own data indicated no role of frustration, that is, no effect of previous experience with a superior reward. The authors conclude that Roma et al.'s study is not a replication and does not disprove the authors' findings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Rigor, rigor mortis, and conspiratorial views of depression research.

The authors reassert the need for methodological changes in depression research appearing in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and other personality and social psychology journals. In this rejoinder the authors update their earlier literature review (H. Tennen, J. Hall, & G. Affleck; see record 1995-31710-001) and respond to the commentaries by P C. Kendall and E. C. Flannery-Schroeder (see record 1995-31700-001) and G. Weary, J. A. Edwards, and J. A. Jacobson (see record 1995-31713-001). The authors notice that G. Weary et al.'s own findings demonstrate the need to change how depression is measured and participants are assigned to experimental groups. The authors also challenge G. Weary et al.'s contention that structured interviews are limited because they require interviewer judgments, and they urge personality and social psychologists to learn more about these interviews. Finally, G. Weary et al.'s suspicion that depression research guidelines reflect professional parochialism is disputed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Recognition ROCs are curvilinear—or are they? On premature arguments against the two-high-threshold model of recognition.

[Correction Notice: An erratum for this article was reported in Vol 37(5) of Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition (see record 2011-14286-001). The authors reconstructed 59 data sets from published studies in which response bias had been manipulated experimentally. These data were fit with signal detection theory (SDT) and a two high-threshold model (2HTM). However, the G2 statistic for SDT fits was misspecified, and there were some errors in the reconstructed frequencies. These errors are corrected in the erratum.] [Correction Notice: An erratum for this article was reported in Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition on July 11 2011 (see record 2011-14286-001). The authors reconstructed 59 data sets from published studies in which response bias had been manipulated experimentally. These data were fit with signal detection theory (SDT) and a twohigh- threshold model (2HTM). However, the G2 statistic for SDT fits was misspecified, and there were some errors in the reconstructed frequencies. (The authors are greatly indebted to David Kellen, who noticed these issues and cross-checked the corrections.) Below are corrected results; the authors also (a) separately analyzed read and anagram word data from Buchner et al.’s (1995) Experiments 1 and 2, and (b) included reconstructed binary response results from Curran et al. (2007), Experiment 3. All data sets were reanalyzed by minimizing G2 for SDT and 2HTM using various routines with converging results. Rather than presenting a corrected version of the complete 4-page appendix table in Bro¨der and Schu¨tz, the new G2 values are reported following the same order as the originally tabled studies from top to bottom, but with four instead of two data sets from Buchner et al. and four instead of three from Curran et al. Square brackets indicate which values stem from the same literature source to further facilitate their correct assignment.] Recent reviews of recognition receiver operating characteristics (ROCs) claim that their curvilinear shape rules out threshold models of recognition. However, the shape of ROCs based on confidence ratings is not diagnostic to refute threshold models, whereas ROCs based on experimental bias manipulations are. Also, fitting predicted frequencies to actual data is a more sensitive method for model comparisons than ROC regressions. In a reanalysis of 59 published data sets, the 2-high-threshold model (2HTM) fit the data better than an unequal variance signal detection model in about half of the cases. Three recognition experiments with experimental bias manipulation were conducted that yielded linear ROCs and a better fit of the 2HTM in all cases. On the basis of actual data and a simulation, the authors argue that both models are at least equally valid as measurement tools and can perhaps be integrated theoretically. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Repetition effects in word and pseudoword identification: Comment on Salasoo, Shiffrin, and Feustel.

Discusses 2 recent articles by T. C. Feustel et al (see record 1984-08643-001) and A. Salasoo et al (see record 1986-03032-001), which argue that word identification is based on episodic and semantic memory. Feustel et al argued for separate processing stages affected by repetition (episodic memory) and lexicality (semantic memory). To account for the finding that number of repetitions interacts with lexicality, Salasoo et al invoked the same 2 types of memory, operating in parallel rather than serially. It is argued that data by Salasoo et al are compatible with a wide variety of competing theories, including some that do not involve episodic memory. (15 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Do illusory conjunctions support the feature integration theory? A critical review of theory and findings.

Presents a critical review of the feature integration theory and the studies of A. Treisman and H. Schmidt (see record 1982-07512-001); W. Prinzmetal et al (see record 1986-26854-001); and K. A. Briand and R. M. Klein (see record 1987-23943-001) and suggests that the phenomenon of illusory conjunctions does not support Treisman's theory of feature integration. I propose that the theory is too vague because it does not explicate the processes that glue features into objects and that each of the reviewed studies has suffered from methodological difficulties that leave the data open to alternative interpretations. The only solid demonstration that attention facilitates feature integration is provided by Experiment 3 of Prinzmetal et al.'s study. This finding, however, is irrelevant to the question of whether feature perception and feature integration can or cannot be performed preattentively. It may simply suggest that in addition to its effect on feature perception, attention can also influence feature integration. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Temporal overlap in the linguistic processing of successive words in reading: Reply to Pollatsek, Reichle, and Rayner (2006a).

A. Pollatsek, E. D. Reichle, and K. Rayner (see record 2006-22004-014) argue that the critical findings in A. W. Inhoff, B. M. Eiter, and R. Radach (see record 2005-13471-012) are in general agreement with core assumptions of sequential attention shift models if additional assumptions and facts are considered. The current authors critically discuss the hypothesized time line of processing and indicate that the success of Pollatsek et al.'s simulation is predicated on a gross underestimation of the pretarget word's viewing duration in Inhoff et al. and that the actual data are difficult to reconcile with the strictly serial attention shift assumption. The authors also discuss attention shifting and saccade programming assumptions in the E-Z Reader model and conclude that these are not in harmony with research in related domains of study. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

How to hit scylla without avoiding charybdis: Comment on Perruchet, Tyler, Galland, and Peereman (2004).

M. Pe?a, L. L. Bonatti, M. Nespor, and J. Mehler (see record 2002-06215-001) argued that humans compute nonadjacent statistical relations among syllables in a continuous artificial speech stream to extract words, but they use other computations to determine the structural properties of words. Instead, when participants are familiarized with a segmented stream, structural generalizations about words are quickly established. P. Perruchet, M. D. Tyler, N. Galland, and R. Peereman (see record 2004-21166-008) criticized M. Pe?a et al.'s work and dismissed their results. In this article, the authors show that P. Perruchet et al.'s criticisms are groundless. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Plausible models of alphabetic search: Reply to Scharroo, Leeuwenberg, Stalmeier, and Vos (1994).

D. Klahr et al (see record 1984-05777-001) proposed a model of the cognitive processes involved in alphabetic retrieval in terms of a 2-level hierarchy of forward-linked associations. J. Scharroo et al (see record 1994-24216-001) attempt to demonstrate that a simple associative model is more plausible, more parsimonious, and a better fit to the data than is the Klahr et al model. In this commentary the author argues that Scharroo et al misrepresent the way in which Klahr et al evaluated their model and that they fail to demonstrate the superiority of a simple associative model. In addition, it is suggested that a composite model that integrates the distinctive features of both models would advance understanding of the process of alphabetic retrieval. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"Sex bias in psychological research: Progress or complacency?": Response.

Responds to the L. Gannon et al (see record 1992-23274-001) comments on the F. L. Denmark et al (see record 1988-34553-001) paper, "Guidelines for Avoiding Sexism in Psychological Research." The authors note that the intent of Denmark et al was to point out common examples of sex bias in psychological research and offer scientifically sound recommendations to prevent or reduce sex bias. However, the authors reaffirm the scientific need to analyze and report sex differences. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Considering phasic alerting in Alzheimer's disease: Comment on Tales et al. (2006).

A. Tales, R. J. Snowden, M. Brown, and G. Wilcock (2006; see record 2006-20657-014) have questioned the authors' view (see record 2004-12990-007) of a possible interdependence between attentional systems mediating exogenous spatial orienting and phasic alerting as well as the authors' suggestion that phasic alerting deficits in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) may be influencing their performance on tests of spatial orienting. Consistent with this possibility, both laboratories have previously demonstrated increased spatial orienting and decreased phasic alerting in patients with AD. In Tales et al.'s current study, however, they have instead suggested that their results provide evidence for functional independence between these attentional systems in AD. In this commentary, the authors address the misinterpretations of their study and evaluate the degree to which Tales et al.'s study addresses the issues that they raise. Given Tales et al.'s difficulty performing analyses on response time data because of variance issues, the presence of a reduced (although not significant) alerting effect in Tales et al.'s AD group (consistent with the authors' previous findings), and a potential floor effect in their measure of alerting, the authors question the validity of Tales et al.'s conclusions and reaffirm their position that not considering interactions among attentional systems can lead to inaccurate characterizations of the mechanisms by which they operate. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

On worthwhile icons: Reply to Di Lollo and Haber.

Responds to R. N. Haber's (see record 1986-11000-001) and V. Di Lollo's (see record 1986-10993-001) comments on the study of a procedure to estimate the worth of an icon conducted by the present author et al (see record 1986-00309-001). In response to Haber, the author maintains that icons can be spatiotopic as well as retinotopic, knowledge of icons is necessary for designing video-display systems, and ecological validity should not be a criterion for the scientific investigation of some topics. Responding to Di Lollo, the author argues that this general model does not account for several salient aspects of data by the present author et al. (27 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Contentions over the confluence model: A reply to Price, Walsh, and Vilburg.

Argues against the contention of G. G. Price et al (see record 1984-27746-001) that the confluence model is invalid on grounds that (a) the assumptions of the age-range correlation formula were not met in the within-family samples cited and hence the formula was misapplied, (b) the confluence model has successfully predicted family configuration effects in between-family samples with children of the same age, and (c) Price et al assigned an inappropriate role to chronological age in their model-testing scheme that leads to a strong bias against finding the effects of other developmental variables. (20 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Critique of Cross, Sheehan, and Khan's "Alternative advice and counsel in psychotherapy."

In analyzing the methodology of D. Cross et al (see record 1980-32896-001) it was found that (1) the problem studied was not the problem proposed, (2) a seriously flawed methodology was used, (3) the analysis of the data was inconsistent with the problem and methods described, and (4) the findings reported were inconsistent with the reported results of the data analysis. Study of alternative sources of counsel and other mediators of the therapy outcome linkage is urged. (5 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)