Accuracy Motivation Research Articles

The Cost of Forming More Accurate Impressions

Does the motivation to form accurate impressions actually improve accuracy? The present work extended Kenny’s (1991, 1994) weighted-average model (WAM)—a theoretical model of the factors that influence agreement among personality judgments—to examine two components of interpersonal perception: distinctive and normative accuracy. WAM predicts that an accuracy motivation should enhance distinctive accuracy but decrease normative accuracy. In other words, the impressions of a perceiver with an accuracy motivation will correspond more with the target person’s unique characteristics and less with the characteristics of the average person. Perceivers randomly assigned to receive the social goal of forming accurate impressions, which was communicated through a single-sentence instruction, achieved higher levels of distinctive self-other agreement but lower levels of normative agreement compared with perceivers not given an explicit impression-formation goal. The results suggest that people motivated to form accurate impressions do indeed become more accurate, but at the cost of seeing others less normatively and, in particular, less positively.

The effect of accuracy motivation on anchoring and adjustment: Do people adjust from provided anchors?

Increasing accuracy motivation (e.g., by providing monetary incentives for accuracy) often fails to increase adjustment away from provided anchors, a result that has led researchers to conclude that people do not effortfully adjust away from such anchors. We challenge this conclusion. First, we show that people are typically uncertain about which way to adjust from provided anchors and that this uncertainty often causes people to believe that they have initially adjusted too far away from such anchors (Studies 1a and 1b). Then, we show that although accuracy motivation fails to increase the gap between anchors and final estimates when people are uncertain about the direction of adjustment, accuracy motivation does increase anchor-estimate gaps when people are certain about the direction of adjustment, and that this is true regardless of whether the anchors are provided or self-generated (Studies 2, 3a, 3b, and 5). These results suggest that people do effortfully adjust away from provided anchors but that uncertainty about the direction of adjustment makes that adjustment harder to detect than previously assumed. This conclusion has important theoretical implications, suggesting that currently emphasized distinctions between anchor types (self-generated vs. provided) are not fundamental and that ostensibly competing theories of anchoring (selective accessibility and anchoring-and-adjustment) are complementary.

The Effect of Accuracy Motivation on Anchoring and Adjustment: Do People Adjust from Provided Anchors?

Increasing accuracy motivation (e.g., by providing monetary incentives for accuracy) often fails to increase adjustment away from provided anchors, a result that has led researchers to conclude that people do not effortfully adjust away from such anchors. We challenge this conclusion. First, we show that people are typically uncertain about which way to adjust from provided anchors, and that this uncertainty often causes people to believe that they have initially adjusted too far away from such anchors (Studies 1a and 1b). Then, we show that although accuracy motivation fails to increase the gap between anchors and final estimates when people are uncertain about the direction of adjustment, accuracy motivation does increase anchor-estimate gaps when people are certain about the direction of adjustment, and that this is true regardless of whether the anchors are provided or self-generated (Studies 2, 3a, 3b, and 5). These results suggest that people do effortfully adjust away from provided anchors, but that uncertainty about the direction of adjustment makes that adjustment harder to detect than previously assumed. This conclusion has important theoretical implications, suggesting that currently emphasized distinctions between anchor types (self-generated vs. provided) are not fundamental, and that ostensibly competing theories of anchoring (selective accessibility and anchoring-and-adjustment) are complementary.

Manipulation Checks as Manipulation: Another Look at the Ease-of-Retrieval Heuristic

Previous findings suggest that individuals rely on ease of retrieval primarily under low judgment elaboration. However, in these previous studies the manipulation check (MC) has always been measured before the dependent variable (DV). It is argued that this sequence increases the likelihood that individuals rely on subjective experience particularly under conditions that prevent considering retrieved contents. Four conceptual replications of such previous findings are reported where the manipulation of the MC-DV order was added to the original design. In all four cases (Study 1 on accuracy motivation, Study 2 on cognitive capacity, Study 3 using a misattribution paradigm, and Study 4 on power), ease-of-retrieval effects under low-judgment-elaboration conditions were observed only if the MC measurement preceded the DV, but not with reversed order.

The Politics of Causes: Motivated Reasoning and Attributions About Shooting Tragedies

Individuals develop causal stories about the world around them that explain events, behaviors, and conditions. These stories may attribute causes to controllable components, such as individual choice, or uncontrollable components, such as broader forces in the environment. Here we employ motivated reasoning to understand causal attributions the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting tragedy. We argue that causal attributions stem from individual reasoning that is primarily motivated by existing dispositions and accuracy motives. Both motivations are present for attributions about the Virginia Tech shootings and we seek to understand their significance and whether dispositional motives condition accuracy drives. We are able to test several hypotheses using individual level survey data from a national survey to explain attributions about the 2007 shootings. Our findings suggest a substantial partisan divide on the causes of the tragedy and considerable differences between the least and most educated respondents. However, our analysis also reveal that education have virtually no influence on the attributions made by Republicans, but heightens the differences among Democrats. We discuss these findings for the public’s understanding of the tragedy and more broadly for attribution research.

Feeling validated versus being correct: a meta-analysis of selective exposure to information.

A meta-analysis assessed whether exposure to information is guided by defense or accuracy motives. The studies examined information preferences in relation to attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors in situations that provided choices between congenial information, which supported participants' pre-existing attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors, and uncongenial information, which challenged these tendencies. Analyses indicated a moderate preference for congenial over uncongenial information (d=0.36). As predicted, this congeniality bias was moderated by variables that affect the strength of participants' defense motivation and accuracy motivation. In support of the importance of defense motivation, the congeniality bias was weaker when participants' attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors were supported prior to information selection; when participants' attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors were not relevant to their values or not held with conviction; when the available information was low in quality; when participants' closed-mindedness was low; and when their confidence in the attitude, belief, or behavior was high. In support of the importance of accuracy motivation, an uncongeniality bias emerged when uncongenial information was relevant to accomplishing a current goal.

Assessing Automatic Activation of Valence

The Extrinsic Affective Simon Task (EAST; De Houwer, 2003) has been introduced as an indirect measure of automatic activation of valence. EAST effects provide nonrelative valence measures of single stimuli compared to relative measures (e.g., Implicit Association Test) that imply a comparison between two stimuli or concepts. However, EAST effects can be biased by response tendencies. A multinomial process dissociation model of EAST performance is proposed and successfully validated in four experiments. Its parameters provide pure and unbiased measures of automatic valence activation, controlled processing of task-relevant features, and response tendency. A first application of latent-class hierarchical multinomial models reveals a significant amount of parameter heterogeneity resulting from interindividual differences in accuracy motivation.

Biases in research evaluation: Inflated assessment, oversight, or error-type weighting?

Reviewers of research are more lenient when evaluating studies on important topics [Wilson, T. D., Depaulo, B. M., Mook, D. G., & Klaaren, K. J. (1993). Scientists’ evaluations of research: the biasing effects of the importance of the topic. Psychological Science, 4(5), 323–325]. Three experiments ( N = 145, 36, and 91 psychologists) investigated different explanations of leniency, including inflation of assessments (applying a heuristic associating importance with quality), oversight (failing to detect flaws), and error-weighting (prioritizing Type II error avoidance). In Experiment 1, psychologists evaluated the publishability and rigor of studies in a 2 (topic importance) × 2 (accuracy motivation) × 2 (research domain) design. Experiment 2 featured an exact replication of Wilson et al. and suggested that report length moderated the effects of importance on perceived rigor, but not on publishability. In Experiment 3, a manipulation of error-weighting replaced the manipulation of domain (Experiment 1). Results favored error-weighting, rather than inflation or oversight. Perceived seriousness of Type II error (in Experiments 1 and 3) and the error-weighting manipulation (in Experiment 3) predicted study evaluations.

Stereotyping the Stereotypic: When Individuals Match Social Stereotypes

This research examines how attention and accuracy motivation moderate stereotyping in person perception. Hypotheses were derived from the stereotype validity model, which proposes that perceivers are more likely to use a stereotype as the basis of their impressions when they believe that the generalized beliefs contained within it are valid for the particular target whom they are judging. Consistent with the model's predictions, high attention and high accuracy motivation produced stronger label effects when a target's individuating information matched a stereotype's content. Also consistent with the model's predictions, the opposite pattern was found when a target's individuating information did not match a stereotype's content. Under conditions of a poor match, high accuracy motivation produced weaker label effects. The authors discuss these findings with respect to accuracy and bias in the impression‐formation process.

When Two Rights Make a Wrong: Searching Too Much in Ordered Environments

In electronic shopping, screening tools are used to sort through many options, assess their fit with a consumer's utility function, and recommend options in a list ordered from predicted best to worst. When the most promising options are at the beginning of the list, even seemingly advantageous factors (e.g., lower search cost, greater selection) that prompt consideration of more options degrade choice quality by (1) lowering the average quality of considered options and (2) lowering customers' selectivity in focusing attention on the more mediocre rather than the better options from the actively considered set. Study 1 shows that lowering search costs diminishes choice quality in an ordered environment. Study 2 shows that presenting consumers with the top 50 rather than the top 15 recommendations has the same effect. Study 3 shows that greater accuracy motivation in combination with lower search cost diminishes choice quality because consumers are encouraged to consider a wider range of options (lower-quality consideration sets), which ultimately leads to worse choices.

Giving Advice or Making Decisions in Someone Else’s Place: The Influence of Impression, Defense, and Accuracy Motivation on the Search for New Information

When making decisions, people have been found predominantly to seek information supporting their preferred choice and to neglect conflicting information. In this article, the authors investigate to what extent different types of advisors, who recommend a choice to someone or make a decision on behalf of someone, show the same confirmatory information search. In Experiment 1, the authors presented participants, in the role of advisors, with a client's decision problem and found that when making a recommendation, advisors conducted a more balanced information search than participants who were making a decision for themselves. However, advisors who had to make a decision on behalf of their clients revealed an increased preference for information supporting their position. Experiment 2 suggested that this confirmatory information search was caused by impression motivation: The advisors bolstered their decision to justify it to the client. The results are discussed within the multiple motive framework of the heuristic systematic model.

The strategic regulation of children’s memory performance and suggestibility

We report two empirical studies that investigated previously reported benefits of a high accuracy motivation, and thus a high threshold, for children’s and adults’ event recall and for their ability to resist false suggestions. In the studies, 6-, 7-, and 8-year-olds, as well as adults, were shown a brief video about an event and were later asked unbiased and misleading questions about it. In Study 1, participants were either (a) given the typical accuracy instructions (including the option to answer with “I don’t know”), (b) reminded of the accuracy instructions during the interview, or (c) immediately given feedback and a token for every correct answer. The results showed that the reminders were ineffective in stimulating strategic control behavior in children, independent of age. In Study 2, the confounding effects of feedback and incentives were disentangled by contrasting (a) free report, (b) feedback only, (c) incentives only, and (d) feedback plus incentives. Analyses on recall performance and suggestibility revealed that both feedback and incentives are necessary to increase children’s accurate memory reports.

Interpreting the parameters of the diffusion model: An empirical validation

The diffusion model (Ratcliff, 1978) allows for the statistical separation of different components of a speeded binary decision process (decision threshold, bias, information uptake, and motor response). These components are represented by different parameters of the model. Two experiments were conducted to test the interpretational validity of the parameters. Using a color discrimination task, we investigated whether experimental manipulations of specific aspects of the decision process had specific effects on the corresponding parameters in a diffusion model data analysis (see Ratcliff, 2002; Ratcliff & Rouder, 1998; Ratcliff, Thapar, & McKoon, 2001, 2003). In support of the model, we found that (1) decision thresholds were higher when we induced accuracy motivation, (2) drift rates (i.e., information uptake) were lower when stimuli were harder to discriminate, (3) the motor components were increased when a more difficult form of response was required, and (4) the process was biased toward rewarded responses.

Information search and presentation in advisor–client interactions

When making a decision, people often search for more information supporting than conflicting with their preferred alternative. This can be counterproductive because potential risks and liabilities of the intended decision may be overlooked. However, when confronted with a decision problem, people often turn to advisors for help. We examined what kind of information advisors search for when confronted with a client’s decision problem and what information they present to their clients. Experiment 1 suggested that advisors (participants in the role of travel agents or friends) conducted a more balanced information search than personal decision-makers. However, when presenting information to their client, mock travel agents passed on more information supporting their recommendation than conflicting with it, whereas friends presented information in a balanced way. Experiment 2 replicated the balanced information search of advisors and suggested that this effect was partly mediated by the advisors’ increased accuracy motivation. Practical and theoretical implications are discussed.

The interactive effects of processing preference and motivation on information processing: Causal uncertainty and the MBTI in a persuasion context

Causal uncertainty is thought to lead to accuracy motivation, which has been postulated previously to lead to increases in effortful information processing. It was hypothesized that this would depend on the extent to which a person typically prefers to process with conscious effort. Processing preference was assessed using the Judgment/Perception index of the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. People high in causal uncertainty and Judgment (i.e., preference for conscious effort) listed more thoughts after reading a persuasive essay and recalled more of the essay than did other participants. Also, the attitudes of people high in both causal uncertainty and Judgment towards the topic were affected by their assessment of the quality of the arguments.

The Effects of Accuracy Motivation on Children's and Adults' Event Recall, Suggestibility, and Their Answers to Unanswerable Questions

This study investigated children's and adults' event recall accuracy and suggestibility effects when participants' accuracy motivation was manipulated. A total of 240 participants (6-, 7-, and 8-year-olds, and adults) were shown a video and later asked 4 types of questions: answerable questions, both open-ended and strongly misleading, and unanswerable questions, both open-ended and strongly misleading. Participants were either (a) rewarded with a token for every correct answer (high accuracy motivation, Free Report Plus Incentive condition), (b) explicitly given the option of answering with "don't know" when unsure (medium accuracy motivation, Free Report condition), or (c) asked to provide an answer to every question, even when they were not sure or had to guess or both (low accuracy motivation, Forced Report condition). The condition with the high accuracy motivation yielded the highest recall accuracy scores for answerable open-ended and misleading questions. For unanswerable questions, even the youngest age group was able to increase the number of appropriate "don't know" answers when highly motivated to be accurate, but a misleading question format undermined these abilities. The results highlight important interactions between social (accuracy motivation) and cognitive factors (metacognitive monitoring processes) in children's formal interviewing.

The Effects of Accuracy Motivation on Children's and Adults' Event Recall, Suggestibility, and Their Answers to Unanswerable Questions

This study investigated children's and adults' event recall accuracy and suggestibility effects when participants' accuracy motivation was manipulated. A total of 240 participants (6-, 7-, and 8-year-olds, and adults) were shown a video and later asked 4 types of questions: answerable questions, both open-ended and strongly misleading, and unanswerable questions, both open-ended and strongly misleading. Participants were either (a) rewarded with a token for every correct answer (high accuracy motivation, Free Report Plus Incentive condition), (b) explicitly given the option of answering with "don't know" when unsure (medium accuracy motivation, Free Report condition), or (c) asked to provide an answer to every question, even when they were not sure or had to guess or both (low accuracy motivation, Forced Report condition). The condition with the high accuracy motivation yielded the highest recall accuracy scores for answerable open-ended and misleading questions. For unanswerable questions, even the youngest age group was able to increase the number of appropriate "don't know" answers when highly motivated to be accurate, but a misleading question format undermined these abilities. The results highlight important interactions between social (accuracy motivation) and cognitive factors (metacognitive monitoring processes) in children's formal interviewing.

Reflecting and Deflecting Stereotypes: Assimilation and Contrast in Impression Formation and Automatic Behavior

Factors influencing the tendency to represent a social stimulus primarily in stereotypic terms, or more as a distinct exemplar, were predicted to moderate automatic behavior effects, producing assimilation and contrast respectively. In Experiment 1, we demonstrated that when an impression pertained to a group of elderly people it led to behavioral assimilation to the stereotype (i.e., slower response latencies) and to contrast when identical information pertained to an individual exemplar. In Experiment 2, an impression of a single individual led to behavioral contrast under normal circumstances but to behavioral assimilation under cognitive load. Experiment 3 demonstrated that while a group impression led to assimilation under normal conditions, this effect was eliminated under conditions of accuracy motivation. Conditions that fostered assimilation were characterized by more stereotypical impressions of the stimulus target(s) compared to conditions that fostered contrast. Implications for automatic behavior are discussed.

The Role of Accuracy Motivation on Children's and Adults' Event Recall

To examine the role of accuracy motivation in event recall, 6-, 7-, and 8-year-old children and adults were shown a short video about a conflict between two groups of children. Three weeks later, participants were asked a set of unbiased specific questions about the video. Following A. Koriat and M. Goldsmith's (1994) distinction of quantity- and quality-oriented memory assessments, and based on their model of strategic regulation of memory accuracy (1996), accuracy motivation was manipulated across three conditions. Participants were (a) forced to provide an answer to each question (low accuracy motivation), (b) initially instructed to withhold uncertain answers by saying “I don't know” (medium accuracy motivation), or (c) rewarded for every single correct answer (high accuracy motivation). When motivation for accuracy was high, children as young as 6 were to withhold uncertain answers to the benefit of accuracy. The expected quality-quantity trade-off emerged only for peripheral items but not for the central items. Participants who were forced to provide an answer gave more correct answers but also high numbers of incorrect answers than participants who had the option to answer “I don't know.” The results are discussed in terms of the underlying model as well as in terms of forensic interviewing.

Multiple Motives and Persuasive Communication: Creative Elaboration as a Result of Impression Motivation and Accuracy Motivation

The authors examined the influence of impression motivation (Experiments 1 and 2) and the combined effects of accuracy motivation and impression motivation (Experiment 3) on the elaboration of persuasive messages as reflected in attitude change and cognitive responses. Intermediate levels of impression motivation led to elaboration of message arguments but high levels of impression motivation did not. The authors argue that the latter finding reflects the operation of creative processing of messages, whereby receivers draw on their own arguments. However, this pattern of results only occurred when individuals also were motivated to hold valid attitudes. When accuracy concerns were lower, high impression motivation was necessary to motivate elaboration of message content. Thus, it was the combined impact of accuracy motivation and high impression motivation that stimulated participants to go beyond the information provided. Implications of these findings are discussed.