Contributions of specific cell information to judgments of interevent contingency.

College students considered the possible effect of an experimental drug on a skin rash. The information came from a 2 x 2 contingency table involving receipt or nonreceipt of the drug and improvement or nonimprovement of the rash: Cell A = receipt-improvement; Cell B = receipt-nonimprovement; Cell C = nonreceipt-improvement; Cell D = nonreceipt-nonimprovement. Without numerical information. Ss judged cells to be ordered A greater than B greater than C greater than D. The same order held when the contribution of each cell was derived from the contingency judgments of other subjects given numerical information. No such consistency was seen when one group of Ss made both judgments: whether individual Ss equally or unequally assessed the importance of the four cells, their contingency estimates showed cell use to be ordered A greater than B greater than C greater than D. These findings may result from strong biases that Ss harbor in processing contingency information.

[1]  Hal R. Arkes,et al.  Estimates of contingency between two dichotomous variables. , 1983 .

[2]  L. Alloy,et al.  Assessment of covariation by humans and animals: The joint influence of prior expectations and current situational information. , 1984 .

[3]  L. Allan.  A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks , 1980 .

[4]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Judging probable cause. , 1986 .

[5]  H. M. Jenkins,et al.  JUDGMENT OF CONTINGENCY BETWEEN RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES. , 1965, Psychological monographs.

[6]  Jennifer Crocker,et al.  Judgment of Covariation by Social Perceivers , 1981 .

[7]  H. M. Jenkins,et al.  The display of information and the judgment of contingency. , 1965, Canadian journal of psychology.

[8]  Edward A. Wasserman,et al.  Perception of causal relations in humans: Factors affecting judgments of response-outcome contingencies under free-operant procedures☆ , 1983 .

[9]  J. Crocker.  Biased Questions in Judgment of Covariation Studies , 1982 .

[10]  A. Dickinson,et al.  Associative Accounts of Causality Judgment , 1988 .

[11]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Comparison of Bayesian and Regression Approaches to the Study of Information Processing in Judgment. , 1971 .

[12]  L. Ross.  The Intuitive Psychologist And His Shortcomings: Distortions in the Attribution Process1 , 1977 .

[13]  E. Wasserman.  Detecting Response-Outcome Relations: Toward an Understanding of the Causal Texture of the Environment , 1990 .

[14]  E. Wasserman,et al.  Judging interevent contingencies: Being right for the wrong reasons , 1986 .

[15]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. , 1977 .

[16]  E A Wasserman,et al.  Judging response-outcome relations: The role of response-outcome contingency, outcome probability, and method of information presentation , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[17]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Memory and cognition , 1977 .

[18]  R. Sternberg,et al.  Evaluation of evidence in causal inference. , 1981 .

[19]  Harriet Shaklee,et al.  Human covariation judgment: Accuracy and strategy , 1983 .

[20]  J. Klayman,et al.  Confirmation, Disconfirmation, and Informa-tion in Hypothesis Testing , 1987 .