A cognitive footprint in archival data: Generalizing the dilution effect from laboratory to field settings

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

Volumn 91, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 254-268

  Waller, William S ^a   Zimbelman, Mark F ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^b BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0041703350     PISSN: 07495978     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00024-4     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Experimentation in social psychology. The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4, 99-142.
2. Ashton, R. H., & Ashton, A. H. (1995). In R. H. Ashton, & A. H. Ashton (Eds.), Judgment and decision-making research in accounting and auditing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Brunswik, E. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review, 50, 255-272.
4. Camerer, C. F., & Hogarth, R. M. (1999). The effects of financial incentives in experiments: A review and capital-labor-production framework. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 1-3, 7-42.
5. Chernev, A. (1997). The effect of common features on brand choice: Moderating role of attribute importance. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 304-311.
6. Connolly, T., Arkes, H. R., & Hammond, K. R. (2000). Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
8. Dawes, R. M. (1979). The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making. American Psychologist, 34, 571-582.
9. Fein, S., & Hilton, J. L. (1992). Attitudes toward groups and behavioral intentions toward individual group members: The impact of nondiagnostic information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 101-124.
10. Fein, S., McCloskey, A. M., & Tomlinson, T. M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1215-1226.
11. Glover, S. M. (1997). The influence of time pressure and accountability on auditors' processing of nondiagnostic information. Journal of Accounting Research, 35, 213-226.
12. Gonzalez, R. (1994). When words speak louder than actions: Another's evaluations can appear more diagnostic than their decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 214-245.
13. Hackenbrack, K. (1992). Implications of seemingly irrelevant evidence in audit judgment. Journal of Accounting Research, 30, 126-136.
14. Hammond, K. R. (1966). The Psychology of Egon Brunswik. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
15. Highhouse, S. (1997). Understanding and improving job-finalist choice: The relevance of behavioral decision research. Human Resource Management Review, 7, 449-470.
16. Hoffman, V. B., & Patton, J. M. (1997). Accountability, the dilution effect, and conservatism in auditors' fraud judgments. Journal of Accounting Research, 35, 227-238.
17. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237-251.
18. Keren, G. (1991). Calibration and probability judgments: Conceptual and methodological issues. Acta Psychologica (October), 217-273.
19. Kinney, W. (1979). The predictive power of limited information in preliminary analytical review: An empirical study. Journal of Accounting Research, 17 (Supplement), 148-165.
20. Liberman, V., & Tversky, A. (1993). On the evaluation of probability judgments: Calibration, resolution, and monotonicity. Psychological Bulletin (July), 162-173.
21. Liechtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., & Phillips, L. (1982). Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Macrae, C. N., Shepard, J. W., & Milne, A. B. (1992). The effects of source credibility on the dilution of stereotype-based judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 765-775.
23. Nisbett, R. E., Zukier, H., & Lemley, R. E. (1981). The dilution effect: Nondiagnostic information weakens the implications of diagnostic information. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 248-277.
24. Noreen, E. W. (1989). Computer-intensive methods for testing hypotheses: An introduction. New York: Wiley.
25. Peters, E., & Rothbart, M. (2000). Typicality can create, eliminate, and reverse the dilution effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 177-187.
26. Shelton, S. W. (1999). The effect of experience on the use of irrelevant evidence in auditor judgment. The Accounting Review, 74, 217-224.
27. Siegel, S., & Castellan, H. J., Jr. (1988). Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.
28. Simonson, T., Carmon, Z., & O'Curry, S. (1994). Experimental evidence on the negative effect of product features and sales promotions on brand choice. Marketing Science, 13, 23-40.
29. Slugoski, B. R., & Wilson, A. E. (1998). Contribution of conversation skills to the production of judgmental errors. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 575-601.
30. Swieringa, R. J., & Weick, K. E. (1982). An assessment of laboratory experiments in accounting. Journal of Accounting Research, 20 (Supplement), 56-101.
31. Tetlock, P. E., & Boettger, R. (1989). Accountability: A social magnifier of the dilution effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 338-398.
32. Tetlock, P. E., Lerner, J. S., & Boettger, R. (1996). The dilution effect: Judgmental bias, conversational convention, or a bit of both? European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 915-934.
33. Troutman, C. M., & Shanteau, J. (1977). Inferences based on nondiagnostic information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19, 43-55.
34. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychology Review, 84, 327-352.
35. Waller, W. S. (1993). Auditors' assessments of inherent and control risk in field settings. The Accounting Review, 68, 783-802.
36. Waller, W. S., Shapiro, B., & Sevcik, G. (1999). Do cost-based pricing biases persist in laboratory markets? Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24, 717-739.
37. Yaniv, I., Yates, J. F., & Smith, J. E. K. (1991). Measures of discrimination skill in probabilistic judgment. Psychological Bulletin (November), 611-617.
38. Yzerbyt, V. Y., Leyens, J. P., & Schadron, G. (1997). Social judgeability and the dilution of stereotypes: The impact of the nature and sequence of information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1312-1322.
39. Zimbelman, M. F. (1997). The effect of SAS No. 82 on auditors' attention to fraud risk factors and audit planning decisions. Journal of Accounting Research, 35 (Supplement), 75-97.
40. Zukier, H. (1982). The dilution effect: The role of the correlation and the dispersion of predictor variables in the use of nondiagnostic information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1163-1174.
41. Zukier, H., & Jennings, D. L. (1983). Nondiagnosticity and typicality effects in prediction. Social Cognition, 2, 187-198.