Abstract
People adaptively shift decision criteria when given biased feedback encouraging specific types of errors. Given that work on this topic has been conducted in nonsocial contexts, we extended the literature by examining adaptive criterion learning in both social and nonsocial contexts. Specifically, we compared potential differences in criterion shifting given performance feedback from social sources varying in reliability and from a nonsocial source. Participants became lax when given false positive feedback for false alarms, and became conservative when given false positive feedback for misses, replicating prior work. In terms of a social influence on adaptive criterion learning, people became more lax in response style over time if feedback was provided by a nonsocial source or by a social source meant to be perceived as unreliable and low-achieving. In contrast, people adopted a more conservative response style over time if performance feedback came from a high-achieving and reliable source. Awareness that a reliable and high-achieving person had not provided their feedback reduced the tendency to become more conservative, relative to those unaware of the source manipulation. Because teaching and learning often occur in a social context, these findings may have important implications for many scenarios in which people fine-tune their behaviors, given cues from others.