The Dud-Alternative Effect in Likelihood Judgment

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 198-215

  Windschitl, Paul D ^a   Chambers, John R ^a  

^a E11 SSH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL;

HUMANS; JUDGMENT; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 0942300563     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.30.1.198     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Ariely, D., & Walkten, T. S. (1995). Seeking subjective dominance in multidimensional space: An explanation of the asymmetric dominance effect. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 223-232.
2. Bar-Hillel, M., & Neter, E. (1993). How alike is it versus how likely is it: A disjunction fallacy in probability judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1119-1131.
3. Brenner, L. A., & Koehler, D. J. (1999). Subjective probability of disjunctive hypotheses: Local weight models for decomposition of evidential support. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 16-47.
4. Campbell, D. T., Lewis, N. A., & Hunt, W. A. (1958). Context effects with judgmental language that is absolute, extensive, and extra-experimentally anchored. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 220-228.
5. Carlson, B. W., & Yates, J. F. (1989). Disjunction errors in qualitative likelihood judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 368-379.
6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Eiser, J. R. (1990). Social judgment. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.
8. Gonzalez, R., Davis, J., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1995). Who should stand next to the suspect? Problems in the assessment of lineup fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 525-531.
9. Helson, H. (1964). Adaptation-level theory: An experimental and systematic approach to behavior. New York: Harper & Row.
10. Herr, P. M. (1986). Consequences of priming: Judgment and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1106-1115.
11. Higgins, E. T., & Lurie, L. (1983). Context, categorization, and recall: The "change-of-standard" effect. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 525-547.
12. Hogarth, R. M., & Einhorn, H. J. (1992). Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1-55.
13. Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 90-98.
14. Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93, 136-153.
15. Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Epstein, S. (1992). Cognitive-experiential self-theory and subjective probability: Further evidence for two conceptual systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 534-544.
16. Koehler, D. J., Brenner, L. A., & Tversky, A. (1997). The enhancement effect in probability judgment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10, 293-313.
17. Krantz, D. L., & Campbell, D. T. (1961). Separating perceptual and linguistic effects of context shifts upon absolute judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 35-42.
18. Manis, M. (1967). Context effects in communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 326-334.
19. Manis, M., & Armstrong, G. W. (1971). More context effects in communication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 381-388.
20. Parducci, A. (1965). Category judgment: A range-frequency model. Psychological Monographs, 77(2, Whole No. 565).
21. Robinson, L. B., & Hastie, R. (1985). Revision of beliefs when a hypothesis is eliminated from consideration, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 443-456.
22. Rottenstreich, Y., Brenner, L., & Sood, S. (1999). Similarity between hypotheses and evidence. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 110-128.
23. Rottenstreich, Y., & Tversky, A. (1997). Unpacking, repacking, and anchoring: Advances in support theory. Psychological Review, 104, 406-415.
24. Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 281-295.
25. Simpson, D. D., & Ostrom, T. M. (1976). Contrast effects in impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 625-629.
26. Stevens, S. S. (1958). Adaptation-level vs. the relativity of judgment. The American Journal of Psychology, 71, 633-646.
27. Teigen, K. H. (1988). When are low-probability events judged to be 'probable'? Effects of outcome-set characteristics on verbal probability estimates. Acta Psychologica, 67, 157-174.
28. Teigen, K. H. (2001). When equal chances = good chances: Verbal probabilities and the equiprobability effect. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 77-108.
29. Tversky, A., & Koehler, D. J. (1994). Support theory: A nonextensional representation of subjective probability. Psychological Review, 101, 547-567.
30. Upshaw, H. S. (1969). Stimulus range and the judgmental unit. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 1-11.
31. Wedell, D. H. (1991). Distinguishing among models of contextually induced preference reversals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 4, 767-778.
32. Wedell, D. H. (1994). Contextual contrast in evaluative judgments: A test of pre- versus postintegration models of contrast. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1007-1019.
33. Wedell, D. H., & Pettibone, J. C. (1996). Using judgments to understand decoy effects in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 326-344.
34. Wells, G. L., Rydell, S. M., & Seelau, E. P. (1993). The selection of distractors for eyewitness lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 835-844.
35. Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 1-39.
36. Windschitl, P. D. (2000). The binary additivity of subjective probability does not indicate the binary complementarity of perceived certainty. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81, 195-225.
37. Windschitl, P. D., Krizan, Z., & Flugstad, A. R. (2003). Likelihood judgment in multi-alternative cases. Manuscript in preparation, University of Iowa.
38. Windschitl, P. D., Martin, R., & Flugstad, A. R. (2002). Context and the interpretation of likelihood information: The role of intergroup comparisons on perceived vulnerability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 742-755.
39. Windschitl, P. D., & Wells, G. L. (1996). Measuring psychological uncertainty: Verbal versus numeric methods. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2, 343-364.
40. Windschitl, P. D., & Wells, G. L. (1998). The alternative-outcomes effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1411-1423.
41. Windschitl, P. D., & Young, M. E. (2001). The influence of alternative outcomes on gut-level perceptions of certainty. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 109-134.
42. Windschitl, P. D., Young, M. E., & Jenson, M. E. (2002). Likelihood judgment based on previously observed outcomes: The alternative-outcomes effect in a learning paradigm. Memory & Cognition, 30, 469-477.