Individual differences in cognitive biases

Psycoloquy

Volumn 9, Issue , 1998, Pages

  Stanovich, Keith E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Bayes' rule; Bias; Hypothesis testing; Individual differences probability; Rationality; Significance testing; Social cognition; Statistical inference

Indexed keywords

EID: 4243102354     PISSN: 10550143     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. Anderson, J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Dawes, R. M. (1989). Statistical criteria for a truly false consensus effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 25: 1-17.
3. Dennett, D. C. (1987). The intentional Stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Hamm, R. M. (1998) Characterizing individual strategies illuminates nonoptimal behavior. PSYCOLOQUY 9(49) http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/ newpsy?9.49 ftp://ftp.princeton.edu/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy/1998.volume.9/psyc.98. 9.49.social-bias.2.hamm
5. Hoch, S. J. (1987). Perceived consensus and predictive accuracy: The pros and cons of projection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53: 221-234.
6. Krueger, J. (1998a). The bet on bias: A foregone conclusion? PSYCOLOQUY 9(46) http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?9.46 ftp://ftp.princeton. edu/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy/1998.volume.9/psyc.98.9.46.social-bias.1.krueger
7. Krueger, J. (1998b). Getting to the core of the data by testing against alternative hypotheses. PSYCOLOQUY 9(70) http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/ newpsy?9.70 ftp://ftp.princeton.edu/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy/1998.volume.9/psyc.98. 9.70.social-bias.8.krueger
8. Krueger, J., & Zeigler, J. S. (1993). Social categorization and the truly false consensus effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65: 670-680.
9. Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
10. Nelson, T., Biernat, M., & Manis, M. (1990). Everyday base rates (sex stereotypes): Potent and resilient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 664-675.
11. Newell, A. (1982). The knowledge level. Artificial Intelligence, 18, 87-127. Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12. Newell, A. (1982). The knowledge level. Artificial Intelligence, 18, 87-127. Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13. Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1995). Theories of reasoning and the computational explanation of everyday inference. Thinking and Reasoning, 1: 121-152.
14. Rickert, N. W. (1998a) Intelligence is not rational. PSYCOLOQUY 9(51) http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?9.51 ftp://ftp.princeton.edu/pub/ harnad/Psycoloquy/1998.volume.9/psyc.98.9.51.social-bias.3.rickert
15. Ruscio, J. (1998) Applying what we have learned: Understanding and correcting biased judgment. PSYCOLOQUY 9(69) http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/cgi/ psyc/newpsy?9.69 ftp://ftp.princeton.edu/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy/1998.volume.9/ psyc.98.9.69.social-bias.7.krueger
16. S, W., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (1998). The domain specificity and generality of belief bias in reasoning and judgment. Manuscript under review.
17. Stanovich, K. E. (in press). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahweh, NJ: Erlbaum.
18. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998a). Cognitive ability and variation in selection task performance. Thinking and Reasoning, 4, 193-230.
19. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998b). Individual differences in rational thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 161-188.
20. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (in press). Individual differences in framing and conjunction effects. Thinking and Reasoning.