Abstract
It is commonly claimed that conservative placement of the criterion in signal detection is due to the form of the utility function of money, to conservatism in the estimation of prior probabilities, or to probability matching tendencies. This article shows how conservatism could be caused by a systematic misconception of the shape of the underlying distributions. An experiment is described in which subjects were asked to make posterior probability judgments after performing numerical analogues of signal detection. The posterior probability judgments were radical, i.e., high posterior probabilities were overestimated and low posterior probabilities were underestimated; if this pattern of radical probability estimation reflects the subjects’ understanding of the underlying distributions, it would account for conservative criterion placement.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Reference Note
Tanner, W. P., Jr., Swets, J. A., & Green, D. M.Some general properties of the hearing mechanism. Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan Electronic Defense Group (Technical Report No. 30), 1956.
References
Creelman, C. D., &Donaldson, W. ROC curves for discrimination of linear extent.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968,77, 514–516.
Dorfman, D. D. Probability matching in signal detection.Psychonomic Science, 1969,17, 103.
Egan, J. P.Signal detection theoly and ROC analysis. New York: Academic Press, 1975.
Galanter, E. Psychological decision mechanisms and perception. In E. C. Carterette & M. P. Friedman (Eds.),Handbook of perception (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press, 1974.
Green, D. M., &Swets, J. A.Signal detection theory and psychophysics. Huntington, N.Y: Krieger, 1974 (originally published, 1966).
Hammerxon, M. A case of radical probability estimation.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973,101, 252–254.
Kubovy, M.[Normative and injbrmational aspects of social influence.] Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, 1971.
Kubovy, M., Rapopoat, A., &Tverskv, A. Deterministic vs. probabilistic strategies in detection.Perception & Psychophysics. 1971,9, 427–429.
Paaks, T. E. Signal-detectability theory of recognition memory performance.Psychological Review, 1966,73, 44–58.
Pexerson, C. R. (Ed.) Special issue: Cascaded inference.Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 1973,10, 315–432.
Thomas, E. A. C. Criterion adjustment and probability matching.Pereeption & Psychophysics, 1975,18, 158–162.
Thomas, E. A. C., &LeggE, D. Probability matching as a basis for detection and recognition decisions.Psychological Review. 1970,77, 65–72.
Ulehla, Z. J. Optimality of perceptual decision criteria.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966,71, 564–569.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The data in this article come from the author’s dissertation (Kubovy, 1971). The data collection was supported by grants from the Faculty of, Social Sciences of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Marshall Fund for Research in Social Psychology. Later phases of this work were supported by PHS Grant MH 26573 from the National Institutes of Mental Health, and by a Junior Faculty Fellowship to the author from Yale University.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kubovy, M. A possible basis for conservatism in signal detection and probabilistic categorization tasks. Perception & Psychophysics 22, 277–281 (1977). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199690
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199690