Advertisement

Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society

, Volume 29, Issue 5, pp 451–454 | Cite as

Individual differences in dealing with incomplete information: Judging clinical competence

  • Irwin P. Levin
  • Richard D. Johnson
  • Daniel P. Chapman
Article

Abstract

Recent research on human judgment and decision making has shown that subjects can use their perception of the relation between stimulus dimensions to infer or impute a value for missing information. Considerable individual differences have been evident. The present study tested the hypothesis that individual differences in the magnitude of the inference effect are related to the weight or importance attached to the missing information and the presumed nature of the interdimensional relationship. The hypothesis was tested in a task in which subjects were asked to rate the competence of hypothetical clinical psychologists on the basis of the clinicians’ experience in treating patients with a particular problem and their familiarity with recent developments in treatment.

Keywords

Stimulus Dimension Clinical Psychologist Stimulus Pair Clinical Competence Average Average 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anderson, N. H. (1965). Averaging versus adding as a stimulus combination rule in impression formation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 394–400.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Huber, J., & McCann, J. (1982). The impact of inferential beliefs on product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 324–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Johnson, R. D. (1988). Making decisions with incomplete information: The first complete test of the inference model. In T. Srull (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 16, pp. 522–528). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
  4. Johnson, R. D., & Levin, I. P. (1985). More than meets the eye: The effect of missing information on purchase evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 169–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Levin, I. P., Johnson, R. D., & Faraone, S. V. (1984). Information integration in price-quality tradeoffs: The effects of missing information. Memory & Cognition, 12, 96–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Meyer, R. J. (1981). A model of multiattribute judgments under attribute uncertainty and informational constraint. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 428–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Singh, R. (1991). Two problems in cognitive algebra: Imputations and averaging-versus-multiplying. In N. H. Anderson (Ed.), Contributions to information integration theory: Vol. II. Social (pp. 143–180). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Yamagishi, T., & Hill, C. T. (1981). Adding versus averaging models revisited: A test of a path-analytic integration model. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 41, 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Yates, J. F., Jagacinski, C. J., & Faber, M. D. (1978). Evaluation of partially described multiattribute options. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 21, 240–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irwin P. Levin
    • 1
  • Richard D. Johnson
    • 2
  • Daniel P. Chapman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Iowa Hospitals and ClinicsIowa City
  2. 2.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations