Abstract
Mathematically inaccurate judgment rules often produce correct covariation judgments; thus, accuracy of covariation judgment alone may be a poor index of the sophistication of a subject’s understanding. We offer a past paradigm of our own (Wasserman & Shaklee, 1984) as an instance in which impressive judgment accuracy may have been the product of simple and inaccurate judgment rules. The present investigation replicates the judgment paradigm of our prior experiment, using a set of 12 covariation problems designed to produce unique judgment patterns by each of four judgment rules. Subjects’ judgment patterns indicated that use of a mathematically accurate rule was quite rare (comparison of conditional probabilities: 3.1% of subjects). The modal judgment pattern conformed to that predicted by a rule in which subjects compare only two cells of a 2×2 contingency table (Strategy a-versus-b: 38.1% of subjects). Distributions of strategy classifications differed among several judgment conditions which varied in the presentation format of event-frequency information.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Adi, H., Karplus, R., Lawson, A., & Pulos, S. (1978). Intellectual development beyond elementary school: VI. Correlational reasoning. School Science & Mathematics, 78, 675–683.
Allan, L. G., & Jenkins, H. M. (1980). The judgment of contingency and the nature of the response alternatives. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 34, 1–11.
Allan, L. G., & Jenkins, H. M. (1983). The effect of representations of binary variables on judgment of influence. Learning & Motivation, 14, 381–405.
Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1979). Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: Sadder but wiser? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 441–485.
Arkes, H. R., & Harkness, A. R. (1983). Estimates of contingency between two dichotomous variables. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112, 117–135.
Beyth-Marom, R. (1982). Perception of correlation revisited. Memory & Cognition, 10, 511–519.
Inhelder, P. & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York: Basic Books.
Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 15). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Seggie, J., & Endersby, H. (1972). The empirical implications of Piaget’s concept of correlation. Australian Journal of Psychology, 24, 3–8.
Shaklee, H. (1983). Human covariation judgment: Accuracy and strategy. Learning & Motivation, 14, 433–448.
Shaklee, H., & Hall, L. (1983). Methods of assessing strategies for judging covariation between events. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 583–594.
Shaklee, H., & Tucker, D. (1980). A rule analysis of judgments of covariation between events. Memory & Cognition, 8, 459–467.
Smedslund, J. (1963). The concept of correlation in adults. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 4, 165–173.
Ward, W. C., & Jenkins, H. M. (1965). The display of information and the judgment of contingency. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 19, 231–241.
Wasserman, E. A., & Shaklee, H. (1984). Judging response-outcome relations: The role of response-outcome contingency, outcome probability, and method of information presentation. Memory & Cognition, 12, 270–286.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shaklee, H., Wasserman, E.A. Judging interevent contingencies: Being right for the wrong reasons. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 24, 91–94 (1986). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330513
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330513