Intuitive Data Processing as a Potential Source of Bias in Naturalistic Evaluations

in the 17th century, for example, rebelled against the influence of Aristotelian thinking and the methods of acquiring knowledge (especially about the physical universe) current in his own day. In particular, he warned against a number of sources of distortion which he called Idols. Those associated with sensory perception and intuitive methods of analysis he called the "Idols of the Tribe," since he believed them to be "inherent in human nature, and the very tribe or race of man" (Bacon 41). Recent research in human perception and cognition has given substance and specificity to many of Bacon's concerns. In addition, there has been growing interest in the implications of this type of research in various social settings, in particular, to courtroom testimony (Yarmey, 1979) and to decision making in business (Wright, 1980). Because bias threatens an evaluation, it is not surprising that there is considerable literature on the topic. It is possible to group various forms of bias under three broad headings. First, there are ethical compromises, actions for which the evaluator is personally culpable. Second are what may be called value inertias, unwanted distorting influences which reflect the evaluator's background experience. The first part of this paper is a brief survey of these two categories, mainly to indicate the scope of each and so distinguish them from the third category, cognitive limitations in dealing with data. The major purpose of the paper is to elaborate the third category. This takes the form of a survey of faulty intuitions which have been identified in empirical research. Only those aspects which appear to have direct relevance to evaluation (in particular, naturalistic evaluation) are included. This is not to suggest that current naturalistic approaches to research and evaluation are undisciplined and merely impressionistic. They are not, of course. But such a catalog of commonly-found intuitive biases is justified even if it is not accompanied by concrete proposals as to how each may be eliminated or reduced. To be sure, the presentation may appear to be somewhat negative (after all, it is a list of defects) but if it helps sensitize naturalistic inquirers to potential problem areas, its contribution will be positive.

[1]  M. Scriven,et al.  Perspectives of curriculum evaluation , 1968 .

[2]  J. Guilford The method of paired comparisons as a psychometric method. , 1928 .

[3]  David R. Krathwohl,et al.  The Myth of Value-free Evaluation , 1980 .

[4]  G. A. Miller THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[5]  Charles F. Gettys,et al.  Multiple-stage probabilistic information processing , 1973 .

[6]  T. Goodrich Strategies for Dealing With the Issue of Subjectivity in Evaluation , 1978 .

[7]  Charles F. Gettys,et al.  The best guess hypothesis in multistage inference , 1973 .

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

[9]  L. Foley,et al.  The psychology of eyewitness testimony , 1981 .

[10]  Maya Bar-Hillel,et al.  The role of sample size in sample evaluation , 1979 .

[11]  Robert S. Siegler,et al.  Strategies for the Use of Base-Rate Information , 1977 .

[12]  Arthur S. Elstein,et al.  1: Studies of Problem Solving, Judgment, and Decision Making: Implications for Educational Research , 1975 .

[13]  L. J. Chapman,et al.  Illusory correlation as an obstacle to the use of valid psychodiagnostic signs. , 1969, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[14]  Ward Edwards,et al.  Judgment under uncertainty: Conservatism in human information processing , 1982 .

[15]  P. Meehl,et al.  Clinical versus Statistical Prediction. , 1955 .

[16]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Dimensional Commensurability and Cue Utilization in Comparative Judgment. , 1974 .

[17]  S. Oskamp OVERCONFIDENCE IN CASE-STUDY JUDGMENTS. , 1965, Journal of consulting psychology.

[18]  L. Beach,et al.  Information Relevance, Content and Source Credibility in the Revision of Opinions , 1978 .

[19]  Zakhour I. Youssef,et al.  The effects of cascaded inference on the subjective value of information , 1973 .

[20]  Cameron R. Peterson,et al.  Intuitive cascaded inferences , 1973 .

[21]  Grandma Moses and the "Corruption" of Data , 1978 .

[22]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Confidence in judgment: Persistence of the illusion of validity. , 1978 .

[23]  J. Raths School Evaluation: The Politics and Process. Ernest R. House, Editor. Berkeley: McCutchan, 1973. 331 p , 1973 .

[24]  D. A. Summers,et al.  Subjective vs objective description of judgment policy , 1970 .

[25]  L. Beach,et al.  Man as an Intuitive Statistician , 2022 .

[26]  R. Cattell,et al.  Formal representation of human judgment , 1968 .

[27]  Lewis R. Goldberg,et al.  Man versus model of man: A rationale, plus some evidence, for a method of improving on clinical inferences. , 1970 .

[28]  R. Wyer Information redundancy, inconsistency, and novelty and their role in impression formation , 1970 .

[29]  H. Meynell VALUES AND EVALUATIONS , 1976 .

[30]  J. Frank Yates,et al.  Evaluation of Partially Described Multiattribute Options , 1978 .

[31]  P. Wason >On the Failure to Eliminate Hypotheses...< – A Second Look , 1968 .

[32]  William R. Shadish,et al.  Evaluation studies : review annual , 1976 .

[33]  M. Scriven The methodology of evaluation , 1966 .

[34]  A. Tversky,et al.  BELIEF IN THE LAW OF SMALL NUMBERS , 1971, Pediatrics.

[35]  William F. Wright COGNITIVE INFORMATION PROCESSING BIASES: IMPLICATIONS FOR PRODUCERS AND USERS OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION* , 1980 .

[36]  H. J. Einhorn The use of nonlinear, noncompensatory models in decision making. , 1970, Psychological bulletin.

[37]  K. R. Hammond,et al.  Science, values, and human judgment. , 1976, Science.

[38]  A. Tversky Intransitivity of preferences. , 1969 .

[39]  Paul E. Meehl,et al.  Clinical versus Statistical Prediction. , 1955 .

[40]  G. Arnstein Trial by Jury: A New Evaluation Method. II. The Outcome. , 1975 .

[41]  R. L. Wolf Trial by Jury: A New Evaluation Method. I. The Process. , 1975 .

[42]  A. Tversky,et al.  On the psychology of prediction , 1973 .

[43]  Lawrence G. Thomas Philosophical redirection of educational research , 1972 .

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

[45]  E. Poulton The new psychophysics: Six models for magnitude estimation. , 1968 .