Ackerman Rakefet, Goldsmith Morris
Department of Psychology, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2008 Sep;34(5):1224-45. doi: 10.1037/a0012938.
When answering questions from memory, respondents strategically control the precision or coarseness of their answers. This grain control process is guided by 2 countervailing aims: to be informative and to be correct. Previously, M. Goldsmith, A. Koriat, and A. Weinberg Eliezer (2002) proposed a satisfying model in which respondents provide the most precise answer that passes a minimum-confidence report criterion. Pointing to social-pragmatic considerations, the present research shows the need to incorporate a minimum-informativeness criterion as well. Unlike its predecessor, the revised, "dual-criterion" model implies a distinction between 2 theoretical knowledge states: Under moderate-to-high levels of satisfying knowledge, a grain size can be found that jointly satisfies both criteria--confidence and informativeness. In contrast, under lower levels of unsatisfying knowledge, the 2 criteria conflict--one cannot be satisfied without violating the other. In support of the model, respondents often violated the confidence criterion in deference to the informativeness criterion, particularly when answering under low knowledge, despite having full control over grain size. Results also suggest a key role for the "don't know" response which, when available, can be used preferentially to circumvent the criterion conflict.
在凭记忆回答问题时，受访者会策略性地控制其回答的精确程度或粗略程度。这种粒度控制过程受两个相互矛盾的目标引导：提供信息和保证正确。此前，M. 戈德史密斯、A. 科里亚和A. 温伯格·埃利泽（2002年）提出了一个满意模型，其中受访者会提供通过最低置信度报告标准的最精确答案。本研究指出社会语用学方面的考虑因素，表明还需要纳入最低信息量标准。与其前身不同，修订后的“双标准”模型意味着区分两种理论知识状态：在中等至高满意度知识水平下，可以找到一个同时满足置信度和信息量这两个标准的粒度。相比之下，在较低的不满意知识水平下，这两个标准相互冲突——不违反另一个标准就无法满足其中一个标准。为支持该模型，受访者常常会为了信息量标准而违反置信度标准，尤其是在知识水平较低时回答问题，尽管他们完全可以控制粒度。结果还表明“不知道”回答起着关键作用，当可以使用该回答时，可优先用于规避标准冲突。
