Separating the wheat from the chaff: Does discriminating between diagnostic and nondiagnostic information eliminate the dilution effect?

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 231-243

  Kemmelmeier, Markus ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

Author keywords

Conversational logic; Debiasing; Dilution effect; Human judgment; Nondiagnostic information

Indexed keywords

EID: 10044226323     PISSN: 08943257     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bdm.473     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Bhattacharjee, S., & Moreno, K. (2002). The impact of affective information on the professional judgments of more experienced and less experienced auditors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 361-377.
2. Bless, H., Strack, F., & Schwarz, N. (1993). The informative function of research procedures: bias and the logic of conversation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 149-165.
3. Chinander, K. R., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2003). The input bias: the misuse of input information in judgments of outcomes. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 91, 243-253.
4. 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.
5. 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. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1215-1226.
6. Glover, S. M. (1997). The influence of time pressure and accountability on auditors' processing of nondiagnostic information. Journal of Accounting Research, 35, 213-226.
7. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (Vol. 3, pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
8. Hackenbrack, K. (1992). Implications of seemingly irrelevant evidence in audit judgments. Journal of Accounting Research, 30, 126-136.
9. Hastie, R., & Park, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review, 93, 258-268.
10. Highhouse, S. (1997). Understanding and improving job-finalist choice: the relevance of behavioral research. Human Resource Management Review, 7, 449-470.
11. Hilton, D. J. (1995). The social context of reasoning: conversational inference and rational judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 248-271.
12. Hoffman, V. B., & Patton, J. M. (1997). Accountability, the dilution effect, and conservatism in auditors' fraud judgments. Journal of Accounting Research, 35, 227-238.
13. Kemmelmeier, M. (2004). Group discussion eliminates the dilution effect. Unpublished manuscript, University of Nevada.
14. 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.
15. Meyvis, T., & Janiszewski, C. (2002). Consumers' beliefs about product benefits: the effect of obviously irrelevant product information. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 618-635.
16. Nisbett, R. E., Zukier, H., & Lemley, R. (1981). The dilution effect: non-diagnostic information weakens the implications of diagnostic information. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 248-277.
17. Peters, E., & Rothbart, M. (2000). Typicality can create, eliminate, and reverse the dilution effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 177-187.
18. Schwarz, N. (1996). Cognition and communication: Judgmental biases, research methods and the logic of conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Schwarz, N., Strack, F., Hilton, D., & Naderer, G. (1991). Base rates, representativeness, and the logic of conversation: the contextual relevance of 'irrelevant information'. Social Cognition, 9, 67-84.
20. Shelton, S. W. (1999). The effect of experience on the use of irrelevant evidence in auditor judgment. The Accounting Review, 74, 217-224.
21. Slugoski, B. R., & Wilson, A. E. (1998). Contribution of conversational skills to the production of judgmental errors. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 575-601.
22. Tetlock, P. E., & Boettger, R. (1989). Accountability: a social magnifier of the dilution effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 388-398.
23. 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.
24. Troutman, C. M., & Shanteau, J. (1977). Inferences based on nondiagnostic information. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Performance, 19, 43-55.
25. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.
26. Waller, W. S., & Zimbelman, M. F. (2003). A cognitive footprint in archival data: generalizing the dilution effect from laboratory to field settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Performance, 91, 254-268.
27. Young, G. R. II, Price, K. H., & Claybrook, C. (2001). Small group predictions on an uncertain outcome: the effect of nondiagnostic information. Theory & Decision, 50, 149-167.
28. 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.
29. Zukier, H. (1982). The dilution effect: the role of correlations and the dispersion of predictor variables in the use of nondiagnostic information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1163-1174.
30. Zukier, H., & Jennings, D. (1983). Nondiagnosticity and typicality effects in prediction. Social Cognition, 2, 187-198.