Alleviating the concerns with the SDT approach to reasoning: Reply to Singmann and Kellen (2014)

Frontiers in Psychology

Volumn 6, Issue FEB, 2015, Pages

  Trippas, Dries ^a   Verde, Michael F ^b   Handley, Simon J ^b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PLYMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Belief bias; Model fitting; Model identifiability; Reasoning; Response bias; Signal detection theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 84926430710     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16641078     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00184     Document Type: Note

References (13)

1. Aminoff, E. M., Clewett, D., Freeman, S., Frithsen, A., Tipper, C., Johnson, A., et al. (2012). Individual differences in shifting decision criterion: a recognition memory study. Mem. Cogn. 40, 1016-1030. doi: 10.3758/s13421-012-0204-6.
2. Cohen, A. L., Sanborn, A. N., and Shiffrin, R. M. (2008). Model evaluation using grouped or individual data. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 15, 692-712. doi: 10.3758/PBR.15.4.692.
3. Dobbins, I. G., and Kroll, N. E. A. (2005). Distinctiveness and the recognition mirror effect: evidence for an item-based criterion placement heuristic. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 31, 1186-1198. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.31.6.1186.
4. Dube, C., Rotello, C. M., and Heit, E. (2010). Assessing the belief bias effect with ROCs: it's a response bias effect. Psychol. Rev. 117, 831-863. doi: 10.1037/a0019634.
5. Elqayam, S., and Evans, J. S. (2011). Subtracting 'ought' from 'is': descriptivism versus normativism in the study of the human thinking. Behav. Brain Sci. 34, 233-248. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X1100001X.
6. Heit, E., and Rotello, C. M. (2014). Traditional difference-score analyses of reasoning are flawed. Cognition 131, 75-91. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.12.003.
7. Klauer, K. C., Musch, J., and Naumer, B. (2000). On belief bias in syllogistic reasoning. Psychol. Rev. 107, 852-884. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.107.4.852.
8. Morrell, H. E. R., Gaitan, S., and Wixted, J. T. (2002). On the nature of the decision axis in signal-detection-based models of recognition memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 28, 1095-1110. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.28.6.1095.
9. Singmann, H., and Kellen, D. (2014). Concerns with the SDT approach to causal conditional reasoning: a comment on Trippas, Verde, Handley, Roser, McNair, and Evans (2014). Front. Psychol. 5:402. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00402.
10. Trippas, D., Handley, S. J., and Verde, M. F. (2013). The SDT model of belief bias: complexity, time, and cognitive ability mediate the effects of believability. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 39, 1393-1402. doi: 10.1037/a0032398.
11. Trippas, D., Handley, S. J., and Verde, M. F. (2014b). Fluency and belief bias in deductive reasoning: new indices for old effects. Front. Psychol. 5:631. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00631.
12. Trippas, D., Verde, M. F., and Handley, S. J. (2014c). Using forced choice to test belief bias in syllogistic reasoning. Cognition 133, 586-600. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.009.
13. Trippas, D., Verde, M. F., Handley, S. J., Roser, M. E., McNair, N. A., and Evans, J. S. (2014a). Modeling causal conditional reasoning data using SDT: caveats and new insights. Front. Psychol. 5:217. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00217.