Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T08:46:22.796Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Self-insight research as (double) model recovery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2014

Tim Rakow
Tim Rakow*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Essex, Colchester CO4 3SQ, United Kingdom. timrakow@essex.ac.ukhttp://www.essex.ac.uk/psychology/department/people/rakow.html
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Self-insight assessment compares outcomes from two model-recovery exercises: a statistical exercise to infer a judge's (implicit) policy and an elicitation exercise whereby the judge describes his or her (explicit) policy. When these policies are mismatched, limited self-insight is not necessarily implied: Shortcomings in either exercise could be implicated, whereby Newell & Shanks' (N&S's) relevance or sensitivity criteria for assessing awareness may not be met. Appropriate self-insight assessment requires that both exercises allow the original processes to be captured.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , February 2014 , pp. 37 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beckstead, J. W. (2007) A note on determining the number of cues used in judgment analysis studies: The issue of type II error. Judgment and Decision Making 2:317–25.Google Scholar
Bröder, A. (2003) Decision making with the “Adaptive Toolbox”: Influence of environmental structure, intelligence, and working memory load. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 29:611–25.Google Scholar
Cook, R. L. & Stewart, T. R. (1975) A comparison of seven different methods of obtaining subjective descriptions of judgmental policy. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 13:31–45.Google Scholar
Dawes, R. M., Faust, D. & Meehl, P. E. (1989) Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science 243(4899):1668–74.Google Scholar
Rakow, T., Harvey, N. & Finer, S., (2003) Improving calibration without training: The role of task information. Applied Cognitive Psychology 17:419–41.Google Scholar
Reilly, B. A. & Doherty, M. E. (1989) A note on the assessment of self-insight in judgment research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 44:123–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reilly, B. A. & Doherty, M. E. (1992) The assessment of self-insight in judgment policies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 53:285–309.Google Scholar
Slovic, P. & Lichtenstein, S. (1971) Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing in judgment. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance 6:649–744.Google Scholar