Using the regulation of accuracy to study performance when the correct answer is not known

Normative study of 500 general-knowledge of true-false questions for Russian young adults

The main aim of this study was to validate 500 true-false general-knowledge questions in Russian. These norms are valuable to researchers in many fields, as is shown by the impact and relevance of similar norms available in other languages. Although the Russian language is widely spoken, there are no norms available in this language for this type of questions. True-false questions are very useful for measuring semantic memory, among other topics, in neurocognitive studies where there is a trade-off between experimental time and the need for many trials. These types of experimental materials are heavily rooted in cultural background knowledge, making the mere translation from one language to another insufficient. The present research aims to fill this gap. One hundred fifty-five participants answered 500 true-false general knowledge questions split over several consecutive days and three topics: Social Sciences, Natural Sciences, and Culture & Sport. The participants' task was to indicate whether the statements were true or not, as well as the confidence they had in the correctness of their answer. Despite obtaining questions on each of the topics covering all difficulty levels, grouped analyses showed that Social Science's accuracy was higher than for Natural Science's or Culture & Sport questions. In relation to confidence, the grouped perceived difficulty was higher for questions about Culture & Sports when compared with the other two topics. Thus, this study reports and makes available a large pool of Russian true-false general knowledge questions covering different levels of difficulty.

Conversational pragmatics: memory reporting strategies in different social contexts

Previous studies in conversational pragmatics have showed that the information people share with others heavily depends on the confidence they have in the correctness of a candidate answer. At the same time, different social contexts prompt different incentive structures, which set a higher or lower confidence criterion to determine which potential answer to report. In this study, we investigated how the different incentive structures of several types of social contexts and how different levels of knowledge affect the amount of information we are willing to share. Participants answered easy, intermediate, and difficult general-knowledge questions and decided whether they would report or withhold their selected answer in different social contexts: formal vs. informal, that could be either constrained (a context that promotes providing only responses we are certain about) or loose (with an incentive structure that maximizes providing any type of answer). Overall, our results confirmed that social contexts are associated with different incentive structures which affects memory reporting strategies. We also found that the difficulty of the questions is an important factor in conversational pragmatics. Our results highlight the relevance of studying different incentive structures of social contexts to understand the underlying processes of conversational pragmatics, and stress the importance of considering metamemory theories of memory reporting.

Deliberative process in sharing information with different audiences: Eye-tracking correlates

Research on conversational pragmatics demonstrates how interlocutors tailor the information they share depending on the audience. Previous research showed that, in informal contexts, speakers often provide several alternative answers, whereas in formal contexts, they tend to give only a single answer; however, the psychological underpinnings of these effects remain obscure. To investigate this answer selection process, we measured participants' eye movements in different experimentally modelled social contexts. Participants answered general knowledge questions by providing responses with either single (one) or plural (three) alternatives. Then, a formal (job interview) or informal (conversation with friends) context was presented and participants decided either to report or withdraw their responses after considering the given social context. Growth curve analysis on the eye movements indicates that the selected response option attracted more eye movements. There was a discrepancy between the answer selection likelihood and the proportion of fixations to the corresponding option-but only in the formal context. These findings support a more elaborate decision-making processes in formal contexts. They also suggest that eye movements do not necessarily accompany the options considered in the decision-making processes.

Different answers to different audiences: effects of social context on the accuracy-informativeness trade-off

Research on conversational exchanges shows that people attempt to optimise their responses' relevance when they definitely know the correct answer (e.g., "What time is it?"). However, such certainty is often unavailable while speakers may still be under social pressure to provide an answer. We investigated how social context influences the informativeness level when answering questions under uncertainty. In three experiments, participants answered difficult general-knowledge questions placed in different social contexts (formal vs. informal). Participants generated their answers, then they were presented with a given context, and decided on the number of alternative responses they wanted to provide (single, with one alternative vs. plural, with several alternatives) and whether the answer should be reported or withheld (report option). Participants reported more answers in the informal context. In the formal context, single answers were preferred, and they were more frequently reported. We conclude that social context influences the level of informativeness in a conversation, affecting achievable accuracy. Our results also show the joint influence of the confidence and the social context on willingness to share information.