Abstract
Ss judged attractiveness of working at a certain Occupation in a certain City. Experiment I supported the hypothesis that attractiveness was a sum of the separate values of City and of Occupation for Doctor, Lawyer, and Accountant, but not for Teacher. Experiment II confirmed Experiment I and indicated that the Teacher interaction was not a methodological artifact.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Anderson, N. H. Application of an additive model to impression formation. Science, 1962a, 138, 817–818.
Anderson, N. H. On the quantification of Miller’s conflict theory. Psychol. Rev., 1962b, 69, 400–414.
Anderson, N. H. Averaging versus adding as a stimulus-combination rule in impression formation. J. exp. Psychol., 1965, 70, 394–400.
Anderson, N. H. Averaging model analysis of set size effect in impression formation. J. exp. Psychol., in press.
Hammond, K. R. Probabilistic functioning and the clinical method. Psychol. Rev., 1955, 62, 255–262.
Johnson, D. M. The psychology of thought and judgment. New York: Harper, 1955.
Yntema, D. B., & Torgerson, W. S. Man-computer cooperation in decisions requiring common sense. IRE Transactions, HPE-2, 1961, 20–26.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Note
1. This work was facilitated by NSP grant GB-3913. We wish to thank C. Rhodes for his assistance.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sidowski, J.B., Anderson, N.H. Judgments of City-Occupation combinations. Psychon Sci 7, 279–280 (1967). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03328559
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03328559