Human covariation judgment: Accuracy and strategy

Abstract Judgment strategy is proposed as a contributor to the variability of findings in past research on human covariation judgment. Mathematically sophisticated judgment strategies will accurately judge all event covariations. However, faulty judgment rules will also produce correct judgments of many event relationships. Several methods have been used in past research to identify subjects' strategies of covariation judgment. Each of these methods indicates that humans employ simplistic, error-prone rules to judge event relationships. Shifts in covariation strategy use are proposed as a source of past findings that judgment accuracy depends on the decision conditions.

[1]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[2]  Ruth Beyth-Marom,et al.  Perception of correlation reexamined , 1982 .

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

[4]  H. Shaklee,et al.  A rule analysis of judgments of covariation between events , 1980, Memory & cognition.

[5]  A. Lawson,et al.  Intellectual Development Beyond Elementary School VI: Correlational Reasoning , 1978 .

[6]  H. M. Jenkins,et al.  The Judgment of Contingency and the Nature of the Response Alternatives , 1980 .

[7]  Harriet Shaklee,et al.  Development of Rule Use in Judgments of Covariation between Events. , 1981 .

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

[9]  L. R. Goldberg.  Simple models or simple processes? Some research on clinical judgments. , 1968, The American psychologist.

[10]  J. Piaget,et al.  The Growth Of Logical Thinking From Childhood To Adolescence: An Essay On The Construction Of Formal Operational Structures , 1958 .

[11]  L. Abramson,et al.  Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: sadder but wiser? , 1979 .

[12]  Harriet Shaklee,et al.  Methods of Assessing Strategies for Judging Covariation between Events. , 1983 .

[13]  Harriet Shaklee,et al.  Sources of error in judging event covariations: Effects of memory demands. , 1982 .

[14]  J. Seggie,et al.  The empirical implications of piaget's concept of correlation , 1972 .

[15]  Teresa M. Amabile,et al.  Judgment under uncertainty: Informal covariation assessment: Data-based versus theory-based judgments , 1982 .

[16]  D. Kuhn,et al.  Logical Reasoning in the Supermarket: Adult Females' Use of a Proportional Reasoning Strategy in an Everyday Context. , 1979 .

[17]  D. Erlick,et al.  Perceptual quantification of conditional dependency. , 1967, Journal of experimental psychology.

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

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

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

[21]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Verbal reports as data. , 1980 .

[22]  L. Ross,et al.  Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. , 1981 .

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

[24]  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.

[25]  J. Smedslund.  THE CONCEPT OF CORRELATION IN ADULTS , 1963 .