Intuitive covariation assessment of the illusory correlation

Journal of General Psychology

Volumn 127, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 397-411

  Yates, Mark C ^a   McGahan, Joseph R ^a   Williamson, J David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA AT MONROE   (United States)

Author keywords

Covariation detection; Illusory correlation; Intuitive covariation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENT; HUMAN; ILLUSION; INTUITION; RANDOMIZATION;

ENVIRONMENT; HUMANS; ILLUSIONS; INTUITION; JUDGMENT; RANDOM ALLOCATION;

EID: 0034304238     PISSN: 00221309     EISSN: 19400888     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00221300009598593     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Alloy, L. B., & Tabachnik, N. (1984). Assessment of covariation by humans and animals: The joint influence of prior expectations and current situational information. Psychological Review, 91, 112-149.
2. Chapman, L. J. (1967). Illusory correlation in observational report. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 151-155.
3. Chatlosh, D., Neunaber, D., & Wasserman, E. (1985). Response-outcome contingency: Behavioral and judgmental effects of appetitive and aversive outcomes with college students. Learning and Motivation, 16, 1-34.
4. Crocker, J. (1981). Judgment of covariation by social perceivers. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 272-292.
5. Fiedler, K. (1991). The tricky nature of skewed frequency tables: An information loss account of distinctiveness-based illusory correlations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 24-36.
6. Hamilton, D. L., Dugan, P. M., & Trolier, T. K. (1985). The formation of stereotypic beliefs: Further evidence for distinctiveness-based illusory correlations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 5-17.
7. Hamilton, D. L., & Gifford, R. K. (1976). Illusory correlation in interpersonal perception: A cognitive basis of stereotypic judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 392-407.
8. Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (1994). Problems with the measurement of illusory correlation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 611-621.
9. Jennings, D., Amabile, T., & Ross, L. (1982). Informal covariation assessment: Data-based versus theory-based judgments. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 211-230). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10. McGahan, J. R. (1988). Covariation reasoning and the sequential presentation of information: A test of the memory-strain hypothesis. Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(03), 1155B.
11. McGahan, J. R., Flynn, S., Williamson, J. D., & McDougal, B. (1997). An altemate-forms approach to reliability assessment for intuitive covariation judgments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwestern Psychological Association, Fort Worth, TX.
12. McGahan, J. R., McDougal, B., Williamson, J. D., & Pryor, P. L. (2000). The equivalence of contingency structure for intuitive covariation judgments about height, weight, and body fat. The Journal of Psychology, 134, 325-335.
13. McGahan, J. R., & Wight, R. (1989). Intuitive correlational reasoning with two binary variables: The influence of subtle linguistic variations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
14. McGahan, J. R., Williamson, J. D., Bonnette, C., Pettway, J., & Payton, M. (1998). Height, weight, and body fat: Assessments of covariation based on visual information or reported correlations. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 99-110.
15. McGahan, J. R., Williamson, J. D., & Stoecker, J. (1998). Length, weight, and width: Covariation assessments based on haptic exploration. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 1459-1468.
16. McGarty, C., Haslam, A., Turner, J. C., & Oakes, P. J. (1993). Illusory correlation as accentuation of actual intercategory difference: Evidence for the effect with minimal stimulus information. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 391-410.
17. Mullen, B., & Johnson, C. (1990). Distinctiveness-based illusory correlations and stereotyping: A meta-analytic integration. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 11-28.
18. Neunaber, D., & Wasserman, E. (1986). The effects of unidirectional versus bidirectional rating procedures on college students' judgments of response-outcome contingency. Learning and Motivation, 17, 162-179.
19. Peterson, C. (1980). Recognition of noncontingency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 727-734.
20. Pryor, P. L., McGahan, J. R., Hutto, C., & Williamson, J. D. (in press). A preliminary study of the effect of imaginary sexual stimulation on the perceived covariation between freedom and responsibility. The Journal of Psychology.
21. Richard, F. D., & McGahan, J. R. (1998). An evaluation of the conditional probability strategy and rule-analysis methodology in judgments of covariation. Psychological Reports, 82, 819-831.
22. Rosenberg, S., Nelson, C., & Vivekananthan, P. S. (1968). A multidimensional approach to the structure of personality impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 283-294.
23. Shaklee, H., & Mims, M. (1981). Development of rule use in judgments of covariation between events. Child Development, 52, 317-325.
24. Shaklee, H., & Mims, M. (1982). Sources of error in judging event covariations: Effects of memory demands. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8, 208-224.
25. Shaklee, H., & Tucker, D. (1980). A rule analysis of judgments of covariation between events. Memory and Cognition, 8, 459-467.
26. Sherman, S. J., McMullen, M. N., & Gavanski, I. (1992). Natural sample spaces and the inversion of conditional judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 401-421.
27. Smedslund, J. (1963). The concept of correlation in adults. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 4, 165-173.
28. Wasserman, E., & Shaklee, H. (1984). Judging response-outcome relations: The role of response-outcome contingency, outcome probability, and the method of information presentation. Memory and Cognition, 12, 270-286.
29. Yates, J., & Curley, S. (1986). Contingency judgment: Primacy effects and attention decrement. Acta Psychologica, 62, 293-302.