Presentation Title

Do objective performance-based and self-report instruments of automatic and controlled processing measure different constructs?

Faculty Mentor

Susan Beers

Start Date

17-11-2018 10:30 AM

End Date

17-11-2018 10:45 AM

Location

C151

Session

Oral 2

Type of Presentation

Oral Talk

Subject Area

behavioral_social_sciences

Abstract

Dual processing theories posit that people make judgments using automatic, heuristic processes as well as controlled, rule-based processes. Objective behavioral measurement techniques have been developed to quantify the influence of these two processes. For example, Jacoby’s Process Dissociation Procedure (PDP) was originally designed to measure the degree of influence of automatic and controlled processes on memory. Other studies have applied the PDP to psychological phenomena such as morality, decisions made under uncertainty, and spontaneous trait inferences. Individual differences in the employment of the two processes have also been measured using data obtained from self-report questionnaires. If all of these measures truly test what they purport to measure, then self-report scales should correlate with objective performance-based measures. Two studies were conducted to test this hypothesis. Study 1 (N = 51) applied the PDP to the domain of decisions made under uncertainty. Study 2 (N = 46) applied it to spontaneous trait inferences. Participants in both studies were primed to employ either controlled or heuristic processes. Participants also completed self-report measures: Decision Style Scale, Need for Cognition Scale, and The Self-Reflection and Insight Scale as well as another objective measure: the Cognitive Reflection Test-Expanded. The results of both studies showed participants were more likely to employ the automatic than controlled process, Study 1, η2= .821; Study 2, η2= .704. However, the hypothesis that the self-report measures would predict the behavioral measures was not supported. While significant correlations among the self-report measures were observed (r ranged from .27 to .67), none of these were correlated with behavioral estimates. These findings are relevant to and illuminate the difference in parameters measured by self-report vs. performance-based measures. The findings also indicate a discrepancy between individuals’ self-perception that they employ rational thought and their actual use of such processing.

Summary of research results to be presented

Probability estimates of controlled and automatic processing were calculated using Jacoby’s PDP equations for Studies 1 and 2. These probabilities were then submitted to a 2 X 3[Type of Process (Automatic, Controlled) X Priming Instruction (Use Intuition, Use Rational, Control)] mixed ANOVA for Study 1 and 2. In Study 1, participants were more likely to employ an automatic process (M= .70, SE= .02) than controlled (M= .11, SE= .04), F(1, 48) = 220.58, p< .001, partial η2= .821. In Study 2, participants again had a higher probability of using an automatic process (M= .60, SE= .03) than a controlled process (M= .12, SE= .03), F(1, 46) = 109.23, p< .001, partial η2= .704. In Study 1, bivariate correlations revealed that the self-reported measures each failed to predict estimates of automatic or controlled processing. However, inter correlations among the self-reported Need for Cognition, Rational Decision Style, and Self Reflection Engagement, Need, and Insight were significant, (r ranged from .29 to .67, p < .04 in all cases). In Study 2, bivariate correlations revealed that self-report measures did not predict estimates of automatic and controlled processes. However, participants who self-reported high Need for Cognition also reported high engagement in Self-Reflection (r(44) = .27, p= .03) and Insight (r(44) = .34, p= .01). Need for Self-Reflection predicted Self-Reflection engagement (r(44) = .62, p< .001), and Insight, but to a lesser degree (r(44) = .27, p= .03).

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
Nov 17th, 10:30 AM Nov 17th, 10:45 AM

Do objective performance-based and self-report instruments of automatic and controlled processing measure different constructs?

C151

Dual processing theories posit that people make judgments using automatic, heuristic processes as well as controlled, rule-based processes. Objective behavioral measurement techniques have been developed to quantify the influence of these two processes. For example, Jacoby’s Process Dissociation Procedure (PDP) was originally designed to measure the degree of influence of automatic and controlled processes on memory. Other studies have applied the PDP to psychological phenomena such as morality, decisions made under uncertainty, and spontaneous trait inferences. Individual differences in the employment of the two processes have also been measured using data obtained from self-report questionnaires. If all of these measures truly test what they purport to measure, then self-report scales should correlate with objective performance-based measures. Two studies were conducted to test this hypothesis. Study 1 (N = 51) applied the PDP to the domain of decisions made under uncertainty. Study 2 (N = 46) applied it to spontaneous trait inferences. Participants in both studies were primed to employ either controlled or heuristic processes. Participants also completed self-report measures: Decision Style Scale, Need for Cognition Scale, and The Self-Reflection and Insight Scale as well as another objective measure: the Cognitive Reflection Test-Expanded. The results of both studies showed participants were more likely to employ the automatic than controlled process, Study 1, η2= .821; Study 2, η2= .704. However, the hypothesis that the self-report measures would predict the behavioral measures was not supported. While significant correlations among the self-report measures were observed (r ranged from .27 to .67), none of these were correlated with behavioral estimates. These findings are relevant to and illuminate the difference in parameters measured by self-report vs. performance-based measures. The findings also indicate a discrepancy between individuals’ self-perception that they employ rational thought and their actual use of such processing.