Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-zts5g Total loading time: 0.933 Render date: 2021-10-24T14:51:23.030Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

38 - The Social Context of Reasoning: Conversational Inference and Rational Judgment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Denis J. Hilton
Affiliation:
University of Toulouse
Jonathan E. Adler
Affiliation:
Brooklyn College, City University of New York
Lance J. Rips
Affiliation:
Northwestern University, Illinois
Get access

Summary

Most psychologists conceive of judgment and reasoning as cognitive processes, which go on “in the head” and involve intrapsychic information processing (e.g., Kahneman, Slovic, and Tversky, 1982; Nisbett and Ross, 1980). Although it is incontestable that processes of attention, memory, and inference underpin judgment and reasoning, psychologists have perhaps overlooked the extent to which these mental processes are governed by higher-level assumptions about the social context of the information to be processed. On the other hand, philosophers have in recent years drawn attention to the extent to which reasoning from ordinary language is shaped by the nature of social interaction and conversation (Austin, 1962; Grice, 1975; Hart and Honoré, 1959/1985; Mackie, 1974; Searle, 1969; Strawson, 1952). These higher-level assumptions can determine what we attend to, which memories we search, and what kinds of inference we draw.

Consider the way the word family can be differentially interpreted according to context and thus lead to seemingly inconsistent judgments expressed in a conversational exchange (cf. Strack, Martin, and Schwarz, 1988):

  1. Q. How is your family?

  2. A. Fairly well, thank you.

A married man might reply this way if he considers that his wife has recently been saddened by the loss of a close friend but that his two children are in good form. The respondent interprets family to mean the wife and kids.

Type
Chapter
Information
Reasoning
Studies of Human Inference and its Foundations
, pp. 774 - 806
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, J. E. (1984). Abstraction is uncooperative. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 14, 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, J. E. (1991). An optimist's pessimism: Conversation and conjunction. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities: Probability and Rationality [special ed.], 21, 251–282.Google Scholar
Alloy, L. B., and Tabachnik, N. (1984). Assessment of covariation by humans and animals: The joint influence of prior expectations and current situational information. Psychological Review, 91, 112–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allwood, J. (1987). Linguistic communication as action and cooperation. Gothenburg Monographs in Linguistics (2nd ed.).Google Scholar
Asch, S. E. (1940). Studies in the principles of judgments and attitudes: II. Determinants of judgments by group and by ego standards. Journal of Social Psychology, 12, 433–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Au, T. K., and Glusman, M. (1990). The principle of mutual exclusivity in word learning: To honor or not to honor?Child Development, 61, 1474–1490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bar-Hillel, M., and Neter, E. (1993). How alike is it? Versus how likely is it?: A disjunction fallacy in probability judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1119–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkeley, D., and Humphreys, P. (1982). Structuring decision problems and the “bias heuristic.”Acta Psychologica, 50, 201–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bless, H., Strack, F., and Schwarz, N. (1993). The informative functions of research procedures: Bias and the logic of conversation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 149–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boden, M. A. (1977). Artificial intelligence and natural man. Brighton, England: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Bohner, G., Bless, H., Schwarz, N., and Strack, F. (1988). What triggers causal attributions? The impact of valence and subjective probability. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 335–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P., and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. (1986). Social psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R., and Kleeck, R. (1989). Enough said: Three principles of explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 590–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, P. W., and Novick, L. R. (1990). A probabilistic contrast model of causal induction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 545–567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christensen-Szalanski, J. J., and Beach, L. R. (1982). Experience and the base-rate fallacy. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29, 270–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, H. H. (1985). Language use and language users. In Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology Vol. II. Special fields and applications (3rd ed., pp. 179–231). New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1992). Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., and Haviland, S. E. (1977). Comprehension and the given–new contract. In Freedle, R. O. (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension (pp. 1–40). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., and Schober, M. F. (1992). Asking questions and influencing answers. In Tanur, J. M. (Ed.), Questions about questions: Inquiries into the cognitive bases of surveys (pp. 15–48). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Cohen, L. J. (1979). On the psychology of prediction: Whose is the fallacy?Cognition, 8, 385–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, L. J. (1981). Can human irrationality be experimentally demonstrated?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 317–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dascal, M. (1989). On the roles of context and literal meaning in understanding. Cognitive Science, 13, 253–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D. L. (1984). Elbow room: The varieties of free-will worth having. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dodd, D. H., and Bradshaw, J. M. (1980). Leading questions and memory: Pragmatic constraints. Journal of Verbal Learning and Memory, 19, 695–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, M. (1978). Children's minds. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
Donaldson, M. (1982). Conservation: What is the question?British Journal of Psychology, 73, 199–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulany, D. L., and Hilton, D. J. (1991). Conversational implicature, conscious representation, and the conjunction fallacy. Social Cognition, 9, 85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eddy, D. (1982). Probabilistic reasoning in clinical medicine: Problems and opportunities. In Kahneman, D. E., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A. (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 249–267). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faucheux, C., and Moscovici, S. (1968). Self-esteem and exploitative behavior in a game against chance and nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 83–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., and Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, K. (1988). The dependence of the conjunction fallacy on subtle linguistic factors. Psychological Research, 50, 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, K., Semin, G. K., and Bolten, S. (1989). Language use and reification of social information: Top-down and bottom-up processing in person cognition. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 271–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, S. T., and Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Försterling, F. (1989). Models of covariation and attribution: How do they relate to the analogy of analysis of variance?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 615–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J. (1980). Making decisions under the influence of memory. Psychological Review, 87, 190–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funder, D. C. (1987). Errors and mistakes: Evaluating the accuracy of social judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 75–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fussell, S. R., and Krauss, R. M. (1989). The effects of intended audience on message production and comprehension: Reference in a common ground framework. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 203–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fussell, S. R., and Krauss, R. M. (1992). Coordination of knowledge in communication: Effects of speakers' assumptions about what others know. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 378–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, R. (1969). Conservation acquisition: A problem of learning to attend to relevant attributes. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 7, 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, S. A., Wilcox, S. A., and Clark, E. V. (1989). Conceptual and lexical hierarchies in young children. Cognitive Development, 4, 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1984). Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cognitive Science, 8, 275–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1989). Understanding and literal meaning. Cognitive Science, 13, 243–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Kushner, J. M., and Mills, W. R. (1991). Authorial intentions and metaphor comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 11–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ginossar, Z., and Trope, Y. (1987). Problem solving in judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 464–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1968). Utterer's meaning, sentence-meaning and word-meaning. Foundations of Language, 4, 225–242.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A., and Honoré, T. , T. (1985). Causation in the law (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Clarendon Press. (Original work published 1959.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hastie, R. (1984). Causes and effects of causal attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 44–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heider, F., and Simmel, M. (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. American Journal of Psychology, 57, 243–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henle, M. (1962). On the relation between logic and thinking. Psychological Review, 69, 366–378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hewstone, M. R. C., and Jaspars, J. M. F. (1983). A re-examination of the roles of consensus, consistency and distinctiveness: Kelley's cube revisited. British Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, E. T., and Bargh, J. A. (1987). Social cognition and social perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 369–425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hilton, D. J. (1990a). Conversational processes and causal explanation. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilton, D. J. (1990b). Formal models of causal attribution: Conceptual, methodological, and empirical issues. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Hilton, D. J. (1991). A conversational model of causal explanation. In Stroebe, W. and Hewstone, M. (Eds.), European review of social psychology (pp. 51–81). Chichester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
Hilton, D. J., and Jaspars, J. M. F. (1987). The explanation of occurrences and non-occurrences: A test of the inductive logic model of causal attribution. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 189–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilton, D. J., and Slugoski, B. R. (1986). Knowledge-based causal attribution: The abnormal conditions focus model. Psychological Review, 93, 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hippler, H. J., and Schwarz, N. (1986). Not forbidding isn't allowing: The cognitive basis of the forbid–allow asymmetry. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogarth, R. M. (1981). Beyond discrete biases: Functional and dysfunctional aspects of judgmental heuristics. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 197–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornby, P. A. (1972). The psychological subject and predicate. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 612–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornby, P. A. (1974). Surface structure and presupposition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 530–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iacobucci, D., and McGill, A. L. (1990). Analysis of attribution data: Theory testing and effects estimation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 426–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inhelder, B., and Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York: Basic Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaspars, J. M. F. (1983). The process of attribution in common-sense. In Hewstone, M. R. C. (Ed.), Attribution theory: Social and functional extensions (pp. 28–44). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jaspars, J. M. F., Hewstone, M. R. C., and Fincham, F. D. (1983). Attribution theory and research: The state of the art. In Jaspars, J. M. F., Fincham, F. D., and Hewstone, M. R. C. (Eds.), Attribution theory: Conceptual, developmental and social dimensions (pp. 3–26). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, E. E. (1979). The rocky road from acts to dispositions. American Psychologist, 34, 107–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, E. E., and Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219–266). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jones, E. E., and McGillis, D. (1976). Correspondent inferences and the attribution cube: A comparative reappraisal. In Harvey, J. H., Ickes, W. J., and Kidd, R. F. (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 1, pp. 389–420). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Jones, E. E., and Nisbett, R. E. (1972). The actor and the observer: Divergent perspectives of the causes of behavior. In Jones, E. E., Kanouse, D. E., Kelley, H. H., Nisbett, R. E., Valins, S., and Weiner, B. (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 79–94). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
Joyce, E. J., and Biddle, G. C. (1981). Anchoring and adjustment in probabilistic inference in auditing. Journal of Accounting Research, 19, 120–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. A., and Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93, 136–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kassin, S. M. (1979). Consensus information, prediction, and causal attribution: A review of the literature and issues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1966–1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In Levine, D. (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 192–241). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Krauss, R. M., and Fussell, S. R. (1991). Perspective-taking in communication: Representations of others' knowledge in reference. Social Cognition, 9, 2–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraut, R. E., and Higgins, E. T. (1984). Communication and social cognition. In Wyer, R. S. and Srull, T. K. (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Krosnick, J. A., Li, F., and Lehman, D. R. (1990). Conversational conventions, order of information acquisition, and the effect of base-rates and individuating information on social judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1140–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwock, M. S., and Winer, G. A. (1986). Overcoming leading questions: Effects of psychosocial task variables. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 289–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1987). Minimization and conversational inference. In Verschueren, J. and Bertuccelli-Papi, M. (Eds.), The pragmatic perspective: Selected papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference (pp. 61–129). Amsterdam; John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1995). Interactional biases in human thinking. In Goody, E. (Ed.), Social intelligence and interaction. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 221–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loftus, E. F., and Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 585–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macchi, L. (1991). Base rate use in probabilistic reasoning. Paper presented at the Subjective Probability, Utility and Decision Making Conference, Fribourg, Germany.Google Scholar
Macdonald, R. R. (1986). Credible conceptions and implausible probabilities. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 39, 15–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mackie, J. L. (1974). The cement of the universe. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Markman, E. M., and Wachtel, G. F. (1988). Children's use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meanings of words. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 121–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markus, H., and Zajonc, R. B. (1985). Cognitive theories in social psychology. In Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 137–230). New York: Random House.
Martin, L. L., Seta, J. J., and Crelia, R. A. (1990). Assimilation and contrast as a function of people's willingness and ability to expend effort in forming an impression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McArthur, L. A. (1972). The how and what of why: Some determinants and consequences of causal attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McArthur, L. A. (1976). The lesser influence of consensus than distinctiveness information. The person-thing hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(6), 733–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGarrigle, J., and Donaldson, M. (1975). Conservation accidents. Cognition, 3, 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGill, A. L. (1989). Context effects in judgments of causation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 136–314). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Medin, D. L., and Edelson, S. M. (1988). Problem structure and the use of base-rate information from experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 68–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. (1973). A system of logic (8th ed.). In Robson, J. M. (Ed.), Collected works of John Stuart Mill (Vols. 7 and 8). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. (Original work published 1872.)Google Scholar
Morier, D. M., and Borgida, E. (1984). The conjunction fallacy: A task specific phenomenon?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 243–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moxey, L., and Sanford, A. J. (1987). Quantifiers and focus. Journal of Semantics, 5, 189–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neale, S. (1992). Paul Grice and the philosophy of language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 15, 509–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisbett, R. E., and Borgida, E. (1975). Attribution and the psychology of prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 932–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisbett, R. E., Borgida, E., Crandall, R., and Reed, H. (1976). Popular induction: Information is not necessarily informative. In Carroll, J. S. and Payne, J. W. (Eds.), Cognition and social behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E., and Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E., Zukier, H., and Lemley, R. H. (1981). The dilution effect: Nondiagnostic information. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 248–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oatley, K., and Yuill, N. (1985). Perception of personal and interpersonal action in a cartoon film. British Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 115–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17, 776–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orvis, B. R., Cunningham, J. D., and Kelley, H. H. (1975). A closer examination of causal inference: The roles of consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 605–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., and Johnson, E. J. (1992). Behavioral decision theory: A constructive processing perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 87–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., and Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision-maker. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J., and Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Politzer, G. (1993). La psychologie du raisonnement: Lois de la pragmatique et logique formelle [The psychology of reasoning: Pragmatic laws and formal logic]. Thesis for the Doctorat d'Etat ès Lettres et Sciences Humaines. University of Paris VIII.Google Scholar
Politzer, G., and Noveck, I. (1991). Are conjunction rule violations the result of conversational rule violations?Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 83–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (1993). Direct reference: From language to thought. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rommetveit, R. (1978). On Piagetian cognitive operations, semantic competence, and message-structure in adult – child communication. In Markova, I. (Ed.), The social context of language (pp. 113–150). Chichester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
Rose, S. A., and Blank, M. (1974). The potency of context in children's cognition: An illustration through conservation. Child Development, 45, 499–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, R., and Rubin, D. B. (1978). Interpersonal expectancy effects: The first 345 studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 377–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, M., and Fletcher, G. J. O. (1985). Attribution and social perception.In Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology: Vol. 2. Special fields and applications (pp. 73–122). New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Kardes, F. R., and Herr, P. M. (1992). The role of prior knowledge and missing information in multiattribute evaluation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 76–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schank, R. C., and Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An enquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schuman, H., and Presser, S. (1981). Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording, and context. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schwarz, N. (1990). Assessing frequency reports of mundane behaviors: Contributions of cognitive psychology to questionnaire construction. In Hendrick, C. and Clark, M. S. (Eds.), Review of personality and social psychology: Vol. 2. Research methods in personality and social psychology (pp. 98–119). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Schwarz, N. (1994). Judgment in a social context: Biases, shortcomings, and the logic of conversation. In Zanna, M. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 26, pp. 123–162), San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schwarz, N., Hippler, H. J., Deutsch, B., and Strack, F. (1985). Response categories: Effects on behavioral reports and comparative judgments. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49, 388–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, N., Knäuper, B., Hippler, H. J., Noelle-Neumann, E., and Clark, F. (1991). Rating scales: Numeric values may change the meaning of scale labels. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 570–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, N., and Scheuring, B. (1988). Judgments of relationship satisfaction: Inter- and intraindividual comparisons as a function of questionnaire structure. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 485–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, N., and Strack, F. (1991). Context effects in attitude surveys: Applying cognitive theory to social research. In Stroebe, W. and Hewstone, M. (Eds.), European review of social psychology (pp. 31–50). Chichester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
Schwarz, N., Strack, F., Hilton, D. J., and Naderer, G. (1991). Base-rates, representativeness, and the logic of conversation. Social Cognition, 9, 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, N., Strack, F., and Mai, H.-P. (1991). Assimilation and contrast effects in part–whole question sequences: A conversational-logic analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, N., Strack, F., Mueller, G., and Deutsch, B. (1988). The range of response alternatives may determine the meaning of the question. Social Cognition, 6, 107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanon, B. (1988). Semantic representation of meaning: A critique. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 70–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegal, M. (1991). Knowing children: Experiments in conversation and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Siegal, M., Waters, L. J., and Dinwiddy, L. S. (1988). Misleading children: Causal attributions for inconsistency under repeated questioning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 45, 438–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, E., Hippler, H. J., and Schwarz, N. (1992). Confidentiality assurances in surveys: Reassurance or threat?International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 4, 256–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slugoski, B. R., and Turnbull, W. M. (1988). Cruel to be kind and kind to be cruel: Sarcasm, banter, and social relations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7, 101–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Strack, F. (1992). “Order effects” in survey research: Activative and informative functions of preceding questions. In Schwarz, N. and Sudman, S. (Eds.), Order effects in social and psychological research (pp. 23–34). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strack, F., Martin, L. L., and Schwarz, N. (1988). Priming and communication: Social determinants of information use in judgments of life satisfaction. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 429–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strack, F., Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Kübler, A., and Wänke, M. (1993). Awareness of the influence as a determinant of assimilation versus contrast. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1952). Introduction to logical theory. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Tannenbaum, P. H. (1968). The congruity principle: Retrospective reflections and current research. In Abelson, R. P., Aronson, E., McGuire, W. J., Newcomb, T. M., Rosenberg, M. J., and Tannenbaum, P. H. (Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook (pp. 52–72). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 297–332.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. (1992). The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model. In Zanna, M. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 331–376). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E., and Boettger, R. (1989). Accountability: A social magnifier of the dilution effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 388–398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tetlock, P. E., and Boettger, R. (1991). Accountability amplifies the status quo effect when changes create victims. Unpublished manuscript. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Tourangeau, R., and Rasinski, K. (1988). Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 299–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trope, Y., and Ginossar, Z. (1988). On the use of statistical and non-statistical knowledge: A problem-solving approach. In Bar-Tal, D. and Kruglanski, A. (Eds.), The social psychology of knowledge (pp. 209–230). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Turnbull, W. M., and Smith, E. E. (1985). Attribution and conversation: Comprehending uncooperative question-answer exchanges. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1974, September). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1980). Causal schemas in judgments under uncertainty. In Fishbein, M. (Ed.), Progress in social psychology (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1981, January). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallsten, T. S., Fillenbaum, S., and Cox, J. A. (1986). Base-rate effects on the interpretations of probability and frequency expressions. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 571–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, E. U., Böckenholt, U., Hilton, D. J., and Wallace, B. (1993). Determinants of diagnostic generation: Effects of information, base rates, and experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1151–1164.Google ScholarPubMed
Weber, E. U., and Hilton, D. J. (1990). Contextual effects in the interpretations of probability words: Perceived base rate and severity of events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 781–789.Google Scholar
Weiner, B. (1985). “Spontaneous” causal thinking. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 74–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, I., Rest, S. A., and Rosenbaum, R. M. (1972). Perceiving the causes of success and failure. In Jones, E. E., Kanouse, D. E., Kelley, H. H., Nisbett, R. E., Valins, S., and Weiner, B. (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 95–120). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
Weizenbaum, J. (1976). Computer power and human reason. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Wilson, D., and Sperber, D. (1985). On choosing the context for utterance interpretation. In Allwood, J. and Hjelmquist, E. (Eds.), Foregrounding background (pp. 51–64). Lund, Sweden: Doxa.Google Scholar
Winer, G. A., Hemphill, J., and Craig, R. K. (1988). The effect of misleading questions in promoting nonconservation responses in children and adults. Developmental Psychology, 24, 197–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolford, G., Taylor, H. A., and Beck, J. R. (1990). The conjunction fallacy?Memory and Cognition, 18, 47–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wyer, R. S. (1981). An information-processing perspective on social attribution. In Harvey, J. H., Ickes, W., and Kidd, R. F. (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 3, pp. 359–403). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Zukier, H., and Pepitone, A. (1984). Social roles and strategies in prediction: Some determinants of the use of base-rate information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Send book to Kindle

To send this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Send book to Dropbox

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Send book to Google Drive

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×