Abstract
There are four kinds of contingency information: occurrences and nonoccurrences of an effect in the presence and in the absence of a cause. Previous studies have shown that these four kinds are not given equal weight in causal judgment. The present research was designed to test two hypotheses about this unequal weighting: that weightings are influenced by the form of the question and other features of the stimulus materials and that unequal weightings occur, in part, because individual differences in the use of contingency information are not evenly distributed across the four kinds of information. Support was found for both hypotheses. However, the effects of question wording were not always as had been predicted, indicating that more needs to be learned about how people interpret the task, instructions, and materials they are given.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allan, L. G. (1993). Human contingency judgments: Rule based or associative?Psychological Bulletin,114, 435–448.
Anderson, J. R., &Sheu, C.-F. (1995). Causal inferences as perceptual judgments.Memory & Cognition,23, 510–524.
Beyth-Marom, R. (1982). Perception of correlation reexamined.Memory & Cognition,10, 511–519.
Cheng, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory.Psychological Review,104, 367–405.
Crocker, J. (1981). Judgment of covariation by social perceivers.Psychological Bulletin,90, 272–292.
Crocker, J. (1982). Biased questions in judgment of covariation studies.Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,8, 214–220.
Heider, F. (1958).The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Jenkins, H. M., &Ward, W. C. (1965). Judgment of contingency between responses and outcomes.Psychological Monographs: General & Applied,79(1, Whole No. 594), 17.
Kao, S.-F., &Wasserman, E. A. (1993). Assessment of an information integration account of contingency judgment with examination of subjective cell importance and method of information presentation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 1363–1386.
Keppel, G., Saufley, W. H., &Tokunaga, H. (1992).Introduction to design and analysis: A student’s handbook. New York: Freeman.
Levin, I. P., Wasserman, E. A., &Kao, S. F. (1993). Multiple methods for examining biased information use in contingency judgments.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,55, 228–250.
Mandel, D. R., &Lehman, D. R. (1998). Integration of contingency information in judgments of cause, covariation, and probability.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,127, 269–285.
Matute, H., Arcediano, F., &Miller, R. R. (1996). Test question modulates cue competition between causes and between effects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 182–196.
McKenzie, C. R. M. (1994). The accuracy of intuitive judgment strategies: Covariation assessment and Bayesian inference.Cognitive Psychology,26, 209–239.
Nisbett, R. E., &Ross, L. (1980).Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.
Vallée-Tourangeau, F., Hollingsworth, L., &Murphy, R. A. (1998). “Attentional bias” in correlation judgments? Smedslund (1963) revisited.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,39, 221–233.
Waldmann, M. R. (2000). Competition among causes but not effects in predictive and diagnostic learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 53–76.
Waldmann, M. R. (2001). Predictive versus diagnostic causal learning: Evidence from an overshadowing paradigm.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 600–608.
Waldmann, M. R., &Holyoak, K. J. (1992). Predictive and diagnostic learning within causal models: Asymmetries in cue competition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,121, 222–236.
Ward, W. C., &Jenkins, H. M. (1965). The display of information and the judgment of contingency.Canadian Journal of Psychology,19, 231–241.
Wasserman, E. A., Dorner, W. W., &Kao, S.-F. (1990). Contributions of specific cell information to judgments of interevent contingency.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 509–521.
Wasserman, E. A., Elek, S. M., Chatlosh, D. L., &Baker, A. G. (1993). Rating causal relations: The role of probability in judgments of response-outcome contingency.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 174–188.
Wasserman, E. A., Kao, S.-F., Van Hamme, L. J., Katagiri, M., &Young, M. E. (1996). Causation and association. In D. R. Shanks, K. J. Holyoak, & D. L. Medin (Eds.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 34. Causal learning (pp. 207–264). San Diego: Academic Press.
White, P. A. (1984). A model of the layperson as pragmatist.Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,10, 333–348.
White, P. A. (2000). Causal judgment from contingency information: Relation between subjective reports and individual tendencies in judgment.Memory & Cognition,28, 415–426.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
White, P.A. Effects of wording and stimulus format on the use of contingency information in causal judgment. Memory & Cognition 31, 231–242 (2003). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194382
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194382