Increased sensitivity to differentially diagnostic answers using familiar materials: Implications for confirmation bias

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 577-588

  McKenzie, Craig R M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; COGNITION; EVALUATION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMATION; NORMAL HUMAN; TASK PERFORMANCE; DIAGNOSIS; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

DIAGNOSIS; HUMANS; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 33748868528     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03193581     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. ANDERSON, J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. ANDERSON, J. R. (1991). Is human cognition adaptive? Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 14, 471-517.
3. BASSOK, M., & TROPE, Y. (1984). People's strategies for testing hypotheses about another's personality: Confirmatory or diagnostic? Social Cognition, 2, 199-216.
4. BREHMER, B. (1980). In one word: Not from experience. Acta Psychologica, 45, 223-241.
5. CHASE, V. M., HERTWIG, R., & GIGERENZER, G. (1998). Visions of rationality. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 206-214.
6. EVANS, J. S. B. T., NEWSTEAD, S. E., & BYRNE, R. M. J. (1993). Human reasoning: The psychology of deduction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. FISCHHOFF, B., & BEYTH-MAROM, R. (1983). Hypothesis testing from a Bayesian perspective. Psychological Review, 90, 239-260.
8. GIGERENZER, G. (1991). How to make cognitive illusions disappear: Beyond "heuristics and biases." European Review of Social Psychology, 2, 83-115.
9. GIGERENZER, G. (1996). On narrow norms and vague heuristics: A reply to Kahneman and Tversky. Psychological Review, 103, 592-596.
10. GIGERENZER, G., TODD, P. M., & THE ABC RESEARCH GROUP (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. GILOVICH, T., GRIFFIN, D., & KAHNEMAN, D. (Eds.) (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. GREEN, D. W., & OVER, D. E. (2000). Decision theoretical effects in testing a causal conditional. Current Psychology of Cognition, 19, 51-68.
13. HILTON, D. J. (1995). The social context of reasoning: Conversational inference and rational judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 248-271.
14. JENKINS, H. M., & SAINSBURY, R. S. (1969). The development of stimulus control through differential reinforcement. In N. J. Mackintosh & W. K. Honig (Eds.), Fundamental issues in associative learning (pp. 123-161). Halifax: Dalhousie University Press.
15. JENKINS, H. M., & SAINSBURY, R. S. (1970). Discrimination learning with the distinctive feature on positive or negative trials. In D. Mostofsky (Ed.), Attention: Contemporary theory and analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
16. KAHNEMAN, D., & TVERSKY, A. (Eds.) (2000). Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. KLAYMAN, J. (1995). Varieties of confirmation bias. Psychology of Learning & Motivation, 32, 385-418.
18. KLAYMAN, J., & HA, Y.-W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94, 211-228.
19. MARKOVITS, H. (1986). Familiarity effects in conditional reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 492-494.
20. MCKENZIE, C. R. M. (2003). Rational models as theories - not standards - of behavior. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 403-406.
21. MCKENZIE, C. R. M. (2004a). Framing effects in inference tasks - and why they are normatively defensible. Memory & Cognition, 32, 874-885.
22. MCKENZIE, C. R. M. (2004b). Hypothesis testing and evaluation. In D. J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 200-219). Oxford: Blackwell.
23. MCKENZIE, C. R. M., & AMIN, M. B. (2002). When wrong predictions provide more support than right ones. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 821-828.
24. MCKENZIE, C. R. M., FERREIRA, V. S., MIKKELSEN, L. A., MCDERMOTT, K. J., & SKRABLE, R. P. (2001). Do conditional hypotheses target rare events? Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 85, 291-309.
25. MCKENZIE, C. R. M., & MIKKELSEN, L. A. (2000). The psychological side of Hempel's paradox of confirmation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 360-366.
26. MCKENZIE, C. R. M., & MIKKELSEN, L. A. (in press). A Bayesian view of covariation assessment. Cognitive Psychology.
27. MCKENZIE, C. R. M., & NELSON, J. D. (2003). What a speaker's choice of frame reveals: Reference points, frame selection, and framing effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 596-602.
28. NELSON, J. D. (2005). Finding useful questions: On Bayesian diagnosticity, probability, impact, and information gain. Psychological Review, 112, 979-999.
29. NEWMAN, J., WOLFF, W. T., & HEARST, E. (1980). The feature-positive effect in adult human subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 6, 630-650.
30. NICKERSON, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175-220.
31. OAKSFORD, M., & CHATER, N. (1994). A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review, 101, 608-631.
32. OAKSFORD, M., & CHATER, N. (1996). Rational explanation of the selection task. Psychological Review, 103, 381-391.
33. OAKSFORD, M., & CHATER, N. (2003). Optimal data selection: Revision, review, and reevaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 289-318.
34. OVER, D. E., & JESSOP, A. (1998). Rational analysis of causal conditionals and the selection task. In M. Oaksford & N. Chater (Eds.), Rational models of cognition (pp. 399-414). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35. POLETIEK, F. [H.] (2001). Hypothesis-testing behaviour. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
36. POLETIEK, F. H., & BERNDSEN, M. (2000). Hypothesis testing as risk behaviour with regard to beliefs. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 107-123.
37. SCHWARZ, N. (1996). Cognition and communication: Judgmental biases, research methods, and the logic of conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
38. SHER, S., & MCKENZIE, C. R. M. (in press). Information leakage from logically equivalent frames. Cognition.
39. SKOV, R. B., & SHERMAN, S. J. (1986). Information-gathering processes: Diagnosticity, hypothesis-confirmatory strategies, and perceived hypothesis confirmation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 93-121.
40. SLOWIACZEK, L. M., KLAYMAN, J., SHERMAN, S. J., & SKOV, R. B. (1992). Information selection and use in hypothesis testing: What is a good question, and what is a good answer? Memory & Cognition, 20, 392-405.
41. TROPE, Y., & BASSOK, M. (1982). Confirmatory and diagnosing strategies in social information gathering. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 43, 22-34.
42. TROPE, Y., & BASSOK, M. (1983). Information-gathering strategies in hypothesis testing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 560-576.
43. WASON, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 129-140.
44. WASON, P. C. (1966). Reasoning. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), New horizons in psychology (pp. 135-151). Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin.
45. WASON, P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 273-281.
46. ZUCKERMAN, M., KNEE, C. R., HODGINS, H. S., & MIYAKE, K. (1995). Hypothesis confirmation: The joint effect of positive test strategy and acquiescence response set. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 68, 52-60.