Influence of being videotaped on the prevalence effect during visual search

Frontiers in Psychology

Volumn 6, Issue MAY, 2015, Pages

  Miyazaki, Yuki ^a,b  

^a CHUKYO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b KANAGAWA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Evaluation apprehension; Low prevalence effect; Mere effort; Motivation; Signal detection theory; Video monitoring; Visual search

Indexed keywords

EID: 84930941702     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16641078     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00583     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Bond, C. F., and Titus, L. J. (1983). Social facilitation: a meta-analysis of 241 studies. Psychol. Bull. 94, 265-292. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.94.2.265
2. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spat. Vis. 10, 433-436. doi: 10.1163/156856897X00357
3. Cohen, J. L. (1979). Social facilitation: increased evaluation apprehension through permanency of record. Motiv. Emot. 3, 19-33. doi: 10.1007/BF00994158
4. Cottrell, N. B. (1968). "Performance in the presence of other human beings: mere presence, audience, and affiliation effects," in Social Facilitation and Imitation Behavior, eds E. C. Simmell, R. A. Hoppe, and G. A. Milton (Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon), 28-37.
5. Cottrell, N. B., Wack, D. L., Sekerak, G. J., and Rittle, R. H. (1968). Social facilitation of dominant responses by the presence of an audience and the mere presence of others. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 9, 245-250. doi: 10.1037/h0025902
6. Egglin, T. K. P., and Feinstein, A. R. (1996). Context bias: a problem in diagnostic radiology. JAMA 276, 1752-1755. doi: 10.1001/jama.1996.03540210060035
7. Evans, K. K., Tambouret, R. H., Evered, A., Wilbur, D. C., and Wolfe, J. M. (2011). Prevalence of abnormalities influences cytologists' error rates in screening for cervical cancer. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 135, 1557-1560. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2010-0739-OA
8. Fenton, J. J., Taplin, S. H., Carney, P. A., Abraham, L., Sickles, E. A., D'Orsi, C., et al. (2007). Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography. N. Engl. J. Med. 356, 1399-1409. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa066099
9. Fleck, M. S., and Mitroff, S. R. (2007). Rare targets are rarely missed in correctable search. Psychol. Sci. 18, 943-947. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02006.x
10. Geen, R. G. (1973). Effects of being observed on short- and long-term recall. J. Exp. Psychol. 100, 395-398. doi: 10.1037/h0035494
11. Godwin, H. J., Menneer, T., Cave, K. R., and Donnelly, N. (2010a). Dual-target search for high and low prevalence X-ray threat targets. Vis. Cogn. 18, 1439-1463. doi: 10.1080/13506285.2010.500605
12. Godwin, H. J., Menneer, T., Cave, K. R., Helman, S., Way, R. L., and Donnelly, N. (2010b). The impact of Relative Prevalence on dual-target search for threat items from airport X-ray screening. Acta Psychol. 134, 79-84. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.12.009
13. Guerin, B. (1993). Social Facilitation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
14. Gur, D., Bandos, A. I., Fuhrman, C. R., Klym, A. H., King, J. L., and Rockette, H. E. (2007). The prevalence effect in a laboratory environment: changing the confidence ratings. Acad. Radiol. 14, 49-53. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2006.10.003
15. Harkins, S. G. (2006). Mere effort as the mediator of the evaluation-performance relationship. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 91, 436-455. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.3.436
16. Henchy, T., and Glass, D. C. (1968). Evaluation apprehension and the social facilitation of dominant and subordinate responses. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 10, 446-454. doi: 10.1037/h0026814
17. Ishibashi, K., Kita, S., and Wolfe, J. M. (2012). The effects of local prevalence and explicit expectations on search termination times. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 74, 115-123. doi: 10.3758/s13414-011-0225-4
18. Kleiner, M., Brainard, D., and Pelli, D. (2007). What's new in Psychtoolbox-3? Perception 36, ECVP Abstract Supplement.
19. Kundel, H. L. (1982). Disease prevalence and radiological decision making. Invest. Radiol. 17, 107-109. doi: 10.1097/00004424-198201000-00020
20. Kunar, M. A., Rich, A. N., and Wolfe, J. M. (2010). Spatial and temporal separation fails to counteract the effects of low prevalence in visual search. Vis. Cogn. 18, 881-897. doi: 10.1080/13506280903361988
21. Lau, J. S.-H., and Huang, L. (2010). The prevalence effect is determined by past experience, not future prospects. Vision Res. 50, 1469-1474. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2010.04.020
22. Li, X., Liang, Z., Kleiner, M., and Lu, Z. L. (2010). RTbox: a device for highly accurate response time measurements. Behav. Res. Methods 42, 212-225. doi: 10.3758/BRM.42.1.212
23. Macmillan, N. A., and Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection Theory: User's Guide, 2nd Edn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24. Malcolmson, K. A., Reynolds, M. G., and Smilek, D. (2007). Collaboration during visual search. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 14, 704-709. doi: 10.3758/BF03196825
25. McFall, S. R., Jamieson, J. P., and Harkins, S. G. (2009). Testing the mere effort account of the evaluation-performance relationship. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 96, 135-154. doi: 10.1037/a0012878
26. Miyazaki, Y. (2013). Increasing visual search accuracy by being watched. PLoS ONE 8:e53500. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053500.g003
27. Navalpakkam, V., Koch, C., and Perona, P. (2009). Homo economicus in visual search. J. Vis. 9, 31. doi: 10.1167/9.1.31
28. Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. Spat. Vis. 10, 437-442. doi: 10.1163/156856897X00366
29. Putz, V. R. (1975). The effects of different modes of supervision on vigilance behaviour. Br. J. Psychol. 66, 157-160. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1975.tb01449.x
30. Rich, A. N., Kunar, M. A., Van Wert, M. J., Hidalgo-Sotelo, B., Horowitz, T. S., and Wolfe, J. M. (2008). Why do we miss rare targets? Exploring the boundaries of the low prevalence effect. J. Vis. 8, 15. doi: 10.1167/8.15.15
31. Russell, N. C. C., and Kunar, M. A. (2012). Colour and spatial cueing in low-prevalence visual search. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. (Hove) 65, 1327-1344. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2012.656662
32. Schwark, J., Sandry, J., MacDonald, J., and Dolgov, I. (2012). False feedback increases detection of low-prevalence targets in visual search. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 74, 1583-1589. doi: 10.3758/s13414-012-0354-4
33. Sharma, D., Booth, R., Brown, R., and Huguet, P. (2010). Exploring the temporal dynamics of social facilitation in the Stroop task. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 17, 52-58. doi: 10.3758/PBR.17.1.52
34. Van Wert, M. J., Horowitz, T. S., and Wolfe, J. M. (2009). Even in correctable search, some types of rare targets are frequently missed. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 71, 541-553. doi: 10.3758/APP.71.3.541
35. Wolfe, J. M., Horowitz, T. S., and Kenner, N. M. (2005). Rare items often missed in visual searches. Nature 435, 439-440. doi: 10.1038/435439a
36. Wolfe, J. M., Horowitz, T. S., Van Wert, M. J., Kenner, N. M., Place, S. S., and Kibbi, N. (2007). Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 136, 623-638. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.623
37. Wolfe, J. M., and Van Wert, M. J. (2010). Varying target prevalence reveals two dissociable decision criteria in visual search. Curr. Biol. 20, 121-124. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.11.066
38. Zajonc, R. B., and Sales, S. M. (1966). Social facilitation of dominant and subordinate responses. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2, 160-168. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(66)90077-1