Abstract
Almost all studies of adult notions of correlation between dichotomous variables show that people do not incorporate two conditional probabilities as they should according to normative definitions. However, these studies disagree considerably about what correlational notions people do have. This paper identifies three factors that contribute to the variability in research results. The first two factors were mentioned in the literature, and the evidence concerning them is summarized: (1) the way data are presented and (2) the instructions subjects receive. A third factor is suggested and studied; the type of variables between which correlation is judged may affect subjects’ notion of correlation, Specifically, asymmetric, present/absent variables (e.g., symptom: present, absent) may strengthen the incorrect notion of correlation as the tendency of two events to coexist (e.g., presence of symptom and presence of disease) disregarding the complementary events. In three experiments, subjects were asked to choose among five interpretations of the sentence “A strong [or no] relationship exists between [two variables],” The above prediction was confirmed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Alloy, L. B., &Abramson, L. Y. Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: Sadder but wiser?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1979,108, 441–485.
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. New York: American Heritage, 1975.
Clark, H. H. Linguistic processes in deductive reasoning.Psychological Review, 1969,76, 387–404.
Clark, H. H. Semantics and comprehension. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.),Current trends in linguistics (Vol. 12):Linguistic and adjacent arts and sciences. The Hague: Mouton, 1974.
Crocker, J. Judgment of covariation by social perceivers.Psychological Bulletin, 1981,90, 272–292.
Greenberg, J. H.Language universals. The Hague: Mouton, 1966.
Hamilton, D. L. Illusory correlation as a basis for stereotyping. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.),Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior. Hillsdale, N. J; Erlbaum, 1981.
Hunter, A. A. On the validity of measures of association: The nominal-nominal, two by two case,American Journal of Sociology, 1973,79, 99–109.
Inhelder, B., &Piaget, J.The growth of logical thinking from Childhood to adolescence. New York: Basic Books, 1958.
Jenkins, H., &Ward, W. Judgment of contingency between responses and outcomes.Psychological Monographs, 1965,79, 1–17.
Lichtenstein, S., &Slovic, P. Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling situations.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1971,89, 46–55.
Nisbett, R., &Ross, L.Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall, 1980.
Särndal, C. E. A comparative study of association measures.Psychometrika, 1974,39, 165–187.
Shaklee, H., &Tucker, D. A rule analysis of judgments of covariation between events.Memory & Cognition, 1980,8, 459–467.
Smedslund, J. The concept of correlation in adults.Scandinavian Journalof Psychology, 1963,4, 165–173.
Taylor, S. E., &Fiske, S. T. Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the head phenomena. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10). New York: Academic Press, 1978.
Tversky, A., &Kahneman, D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.Science, 1981,119, 453–458.
Ward, W., &Jenkins, H. The display of information and the judgment of contingency.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1965,19, 231–241.
Wason, P. C. The processing of positive and negative information.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1959,11, 92–107.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The preparation of this paper was supported by a Lady Davis Fellowship.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Beyth-Marom, R. Perception of correlation reexamined. Mem Cogn 10, 511–519 (1982). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202433
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202433