|
|
144 |
400 |
900 |
|
Hits |
1.0 |
1.0 |
0.8 |
|
False alarms |
0.6 |
0.4 |
0.7 |
|
Correct rejections |
0.4 |
0.6 |
0.3 |
|
Misses |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
|
d' |
2.0729334 |
2.5797625 |
0.31720558 |
|
C |
-1.2898812 |
-1.0364667 |
-0.68302 |
|
|
144 |
400 |
900 |
|
Hits |
1.0 |
0.9 |
0.7 |
|
False alarms |
0.0 |
0.3 |
0.6 |
|
Correct rejections |
1.0 |
0.7 |
0.4 |
|
Misses |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.3 |
|
d' |
4.6526957 |
1.80597 |
0.2710038 |
|
C |
0.0 |
-0.37856662 |
-0.38891646 |
Discussion:
The tables show how well I was able to detect the line with 144 other dots, 400 other dots, and 900 other dots. We were also given to scenarios. The first experiment I was trying to think that I was an air traffic controller, and not catching a line would mean enemy planes would make it into our air space, which would have terrible consequences. This instruction made me afraid to miss, therefore I answered that the line was present more when it was not there. I only answered no, when I was very sure that the line was not present. This is evident in the first table of my data, I had no misses in the 144, and 400 areas, and only .02 in the 900.
The second table represents my ability while following the second set of instructions. The second scenario was that I was supposed to be a systems manager for a company and that the line was a broken computer. Although I was still not suppose to have false alarms, because my boss would get very angry, it was not as life-threatening as the missing of enemy planes. Again this thought process shows in my data because I had a good deal of false alarms.
What was different is that the two scenarios made me think that doing certain things was worse or better. In the first scenario I was more afraid to miss, which is confirmed in my data because I had relatively few misses. In the second scenario I was a little more worried about false alarms but since the scenario did not mean life or death I had more mistakes, again my data confirms this because I did have quite a few false alarms.