Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T14:58:00.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part III - Consequences of Selective Sampling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2023

Edited by
Klaus Fiedler ,
Peter Juslin  and
Jerker Denrell
Klaus Fiedler
Affiliation:
Universität Heidelberg
Peter Juslin
Affiliation:
Uppsala Universitet, Sweden
Jerker Denrell
Affiliation:
University of Warwick
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making , pp. 205 - 286
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

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

References

Anderson, N. H. (1965). Primacy effects in personality impression formation using a generalized order effect paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2(1), 1–9. doi: 10.1037/h0021966Google Scholar
Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41(3), 258–290. doi: 10.1037/h0055756Google Scholar
Bott, F. M., Kellen, D., & Klauer, K. C. (2021). Normative accounts of illusory correlations. Psychological Review, 128(5), 856–878. doi: 10.1037/rev0000273Google Scholar
Cohen, J. D., McClure, S. M., & Yu, A. J. (2007). Should I stay or should I go? How the human brain manages the trade-off between exploitation and exploration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1481), 933–942. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2007.2098Google Scholar
Costello, F., & Watts, P. (2019). The rationality of illusory correlation. Psychological Review, 126(3), 437–450. doi: 10.1037/rev0000130Google Scholar
Custers, R., & Aarts, H. (2010). The unconscious will: How the pursuit of goals operates outside of conscious awareness. Science, 329(5987), 47–50. doi:10.1126/science.1188595Google Scholar
Dennis, M. J., & Ahn, W.-K. (2001). Primacy in causal strength judgments: The effect of initial evidence for generative versus inhibitory relationships. Memory & Cognition, 29(1), 152–164. doi: 10.3758/BF03195749Google Scholar
Denrell, J. (2005). Why most people disapprove of me: Experience sampling in impression formation. Psychological Review, 112(4), 951–978. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.951Google Scholar
Denrell, J., & Le Mens, G. (2012). Social judgments from adaptive samples. In Krueger, J. I. (Ed.), Social judgment and decision making (pp. 151–169). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Denrell, J., & March, J. G. (2001). Adaptation as information restriction: The hot stove effect. Organization Science, 12(5), 523–538. doi: 10.1287/orsc.12.5.523.10092Google Scholar
Feingold, A. (1992). Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin, 111(2), 304–341.Google Scholar
Fetchenhauer, D., & Dunning, D. (2010). Why so cynical? Asymmetric feedback underlies misguided skepticism regarding the trustworthiness of others. Psychological Science, 21(2), 189–193. doi: 10.1177/0956797609358586Google Scholar
Fiedler, K. (1996). Explaining and simulating judgment biases as an aggregation phenomenon in probabilistic, multiple-cue environments. Psychological Review, 103(1), 193–214.Google Scholar
Fiedler, K. (2010). Pseudocontingencies can override genuine contingencies between multiple cues. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(4), 504–509. doi: 10.3758/PBR.17.4.504Google Scholar
Fiedler, K., & Freytag, P. (2004). Pseudocontingencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(4), 453–467. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.4.453Google Scholar
Fiedler, K., Freytag, P., & Meiser, T. (2009). Pseudocontingencies: An integrative account of an intriguing cognitive illusion. Psychological Review, 116(1), 187–206. doi: 10.1037/a0014480Google Scholar
Fiedler, K., Walther, E., & Nickel, S. (1999). The auto-verification of social hypotheses: Stereotyping and the power of sample size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 5–18. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.5Google Scholar
Fiedler, K., & Wänke, M. (2009). The cognitive-ecological approach to rationality in social psychology. Social Cognition, 27(5), 699–732. doi: 10.1521/soco.2009.27.5.699Google Scholar
Gaissmaier, W., & Schooler, L. J. (2008). The smart potential behind probability matching. Cognition, 109(3), 416–422.Google Scholar
Gervais, W. M., Shariff, A. F., & Norenzayan, A. (2011). Do you believe in atheists? Distrust is central to anti-atheist prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(6), 1189–1206. doi: 10.1037/a0025882Google Scholar
Harris, C., Aarts, H., Fiedler, K., & Custers, R. (2022a). Iterative cycles in psychology: How hedonic outcomes, idiosyncratic experiences, and decisions by experience shape our subjective world. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
Harris, C., Aarts, H., Fiedler, K., & Custers, R. (2022b). Missing out by pursuing rewarding outcomes: Why initial biases can lead to persistent suboptimal choices. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Harris, C., Fiedler, K., Marien, H., & Custers, R. (2020). Biased preferences through exploitation: How initial biases are consolidated in reward-rich environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(10), 1855–1877.Google Scholar
Hills, T. T., Todd, P. M., Lazer, D., Redish, A. D., & Couzin, I. D. (2015). Exploration versus exploitation in space, mind, and society. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(1), 46–54. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.10.004Google Scholar
Jaeger, B., Harris, C., Custers, R., & Todorov, A. (2022). Biased partner selection propagates stereotypes and inequalities in social exchange. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Jones, E. E., Goethals, G. R., Kennington, G. E., & Severance, L. J. (1972). Primacy and assimilation in the attribution process: The stable entity proposition. Journal of Personality, 40(2), 250–274.Google Scholar
Kareev, Y., & Fiedler, K. (2006). Nonproportional sampling and the amplification of correlations. Psychological Science, 17(8), 715–720. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01771.xGoogle Scholar
Kareev, Y., Lieberman, I., & Lev, M. (1997). Through a narrow window: Sample size and the perception of correlation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(3), 278–287. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.126.3.278Google Scholar
Keasar, T., Rashkovich, E., Cohen, D., & Shmida, A. (2002). Bees in two-armed bandit situations: Foraging choices and possible decision mechanisms. Behavioral Ecology, 13(6), 757–765. doi: 10.1093/beheco/13.6.757Google Scholar
Klayman, J., & Ha, Y.-W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94(2), 211–228. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.211Google Scholar
Klein, W. M., & Kunda, Z. (1992). Motivated person perception: Constructing justifications for desired beliefs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(2), 145–168. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(92)90036-JGoogle Scholar
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480Google Scholar
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098Google Scholar
Mehlhorn, K., Newell, B. R., Todd, P. M. et al. (2015). Unpacking the exploration–exploitation tradeoff: A synthesis of human and animal literatures. Decision, 2(3), 191–215. doi: 10.1037/dec0000033Google Scholar
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751Google Scholar
Pilditch, T. D., & Custers, R. (2018). Communicated beliefs about action-outcomes: The role of initial confirmation in the adoption and maintenance of unsupported beliefs. Acta Psychologica, 184, 46–63. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.04.006Google Scholar
Rakow, T., & Miler, K. (2009). Doomed to repeat the successes of the past: History is best forgotten for repeated choices with nonstationary payoffs. Memory & Cognition, 37(7), 985–1000. doi: 10.3758/MC.37.7.985Google Scholar
Relton, C., Cooper, K., Viksveen, P., Fibert, P., & Thomas, K. (2017). Prevalence of homeopathy use by the general population worldwide: A systematic review. Homeopathy, 106(2), 69–78. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.homp.2017.03.002Google Scholar
Rescorla, R., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non reinforcement. In Black, A. H. & Prokasy, W. F. (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Shang, A., Huwiler-Müntener, K., Nartey, L., et al. (2005). Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. The Lancet, 366(9487), 726–732. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67177-2Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99–118. doi: 10.2307/1884852Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129–138. doi: 10.1037/h0042769Google Scholar
Vulkan, N. (2000). An economist’s perspective on probability matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 14, 101–118. doi: 10.1111/1467-6419.00106Google Scholar

References

Alicke, M. D., & Govorun, O. (2005). The better-than-average effect. The Self in Social Judgment, 1, 85–106.Google Scholar
Alves, H. (2018). Sharing rare attitudes attracts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 1270–1283.Google Scholar
Alves, H., Högden, F., Gast, A., Aust, F., & Unkelbach, C. (2020). Attitudes from mere co-occurrences are guided by differentiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119, 560.Google Scholar
Alves, H., Koch, A., & Unkelbach, C. (2016). My friends are all alike: The relation between liking and perceived similarity in person perception. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 103–117.Google Scholar
Alves, H., Koch, A., & Unkelbach, C. (2017a). The “common good” phenomenon: Why similarities are positive and differences are negative. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146, 512.Google Scholar
Alves, H., Koch, A., & Unkelbach, C. (2017b). Why good is more alike than bad: Processing implications. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21, 69–79.Google Scholar
Alves, H., Koch, A., & Unkelbach, C. (2018a). A cognitive-ecological explanation of intergroup biases. Psychological Science, 29, 1126–1133.Google Scholar
Alves, H., Koch, A., & Unkelbach, C. (2018b). The differential similarity of positive and negative information: An affect-induced processing outcome? Cognition and Emotion, 33, 1224–1238.Google Scholar
Alves, H., Uğurlar, P., & Unkelbach, C. (2022). Typical is trustworthy: Evidence for a generalized heuristic. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(2), 446–455.Google Scholar
Alves, H., Unkelbach, C., Burghardt, J., Koch, A. S., Krüger, T., & Becker, V. D. (2015). A density explanation of valence asymmetries in recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 43, 896–909.Google Scholar
Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Aristotle (1999 trans.) Nicomachean ethics (Ross, W. D., trans.). Kitchener, Ontario: Batoche Books.Google Scholar
Augustine, A. A., Mehl, M. R., & Larsen, R. J. (2011). A positivity bias in written and spoken English and its moderation by personality and gender. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 508–515.Google Scholar
Bednarek, M. (2008). Emotion talk across corpora. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Bednarek, M., & Caple, H. (2017). The discourse of news values: How news organizations create newsworthiness. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bell, A. (1991). The language of news media. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 84–85.Google Scholar
Bornstein, R. F., & D’Agostino, P. R. (1992). Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 545.Google Scholar
Boucher, J., & Osgood, C. E. (1969). The Pollyanna hypothesis. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 8, 1–8.Google Scholar
Carter, N. T., Miller, J. D., & Widiger, T. A. (2018). Extreme personalities at work and in life. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27, 429–436.Google Scholar
Cimpian, A., Brandone, A. C., & Gelman, S. A. (2010). Generic statements require little evidence for acceptance but have powerful implications. Cognitive Science, 34, 1452–1482.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
De Bruin, W. B., & Keren, G. (2003). Order effects in sequentially judged options due to the direction of comparison. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92, 91–101.Google Scholar
Denrell, J. (2005). Why most people disapprove of me: Experience sampling in impression formation. Psychological Review, 112, 951.Google Scholar
Denrell, J. (2007). Adaptive learning and risk taking. Psychological Review, 114, 177.Google Scholar
Denrell, J., & Le Mens, G. (2011). Seeking positive experiences can produce illusory correlations. Cognition, 119, 313–324.Google Scholar
Denrell, J., & March, J. G. (2001). Adaptation as information restriction: The hot stove effect. Organization Science, 12, 523–538.Google Scholar
Diener, E., & Diener, C. (1996). Most people are happy. Psychological Science, 7, 181–185.Google Scholar
Dodds, P. S., Clark, E. M., & Desu, S., et al. (2015). Human language reveals a universal positivity bias. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 2389–2394.Google Scholar
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1971). Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 124.Google Scholar
Engelhardt, P. E., Bailey, K. G., & Ferreira, F. (2006). Do speakers and listeners observe the Gricean maxim of quantity? Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 554–573.Google Scholar
Fazio, R. H., Eiser, J. R., & Shook, N. J. (2004). Attitude formation through exploration: Valence asymmetries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 293.Google Scholar
Fernandez, R., & Rodrik, D. (1991). Resistance to reform: Status quo bias in the presence of individual-specific uncertainty. American Economic Review, 81, 1146–1155.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T. (1980). Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 889.Google Scholar
Florack, A., Koch, T., Haasova, S., Kunz, S., & Alves, H. (2021). The differentiation principle: Why consumers often neglect positive attributes of novel food products. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31, 684–705.Google Scholar
Galtung, J., & Ruge, M. H. (1965). The structure of foreign news: The presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus crises in four Norwegian newspapers. Journal of Peace Research, 2, 64–90.Google Scholar
Garner, W. R. (1974). The processing of information and structure. Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gershoff, A. D., Mukherjee, A., & Mukhopadhyay, A. (2007). Few ways to love, but many ways to hate: Attribute ambiguity and the positivity effect in agent evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 499–505.Google Scholar
Gilbert, G. M. (1951). Stereotype persistence and change among college students. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 245.Google Scholar
Govorun, O. (2005). The better-than-average effect. In Alicke, M. D., Dunning, D. A., & Krueger, J. I. (Eds.), The self in social judgment (pp. 85–106). London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Grant, A. M., & Schwartz, B. (2011). Too much of a good thing: The challenge and opportunity of the inverted U. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 61–76.Google Scholar
Greenberg, M. S., Saxe, L., & Bar-Tal, D. (1978). Perceived stability of trait labels. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 59–62.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P., & Morgan, J. L. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575–604.Google Scholar
Hodges, S. D. (1997). When matching up features messes up decisions: The role of feature matching in successive choices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1310.Google Scholar
Hodges, S. D. (2005). A feature-based model of self–other comparisons. In Alicke, M. D., Dunning, D. A., & Krueger, J. I. (Eds.), The Self in Social Judgment (pp. 131–153). London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Hoorens, V. (1993). Self-enhancement and superiority biases in social comparison. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 113–139.Google Scholar
Houston, D. A., & Sherman, S. J. (1995). Cancellation and focus: The role of shared and unique features in the choice process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 357–378.Google Scholar
Houston, D. A., Sherman, S. J., & Baker, S. M. (1989). The influence of unique features and direction of comparison of preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 121–141.Google Scholar
Houston, D. A., Sherman, S. J., & Baker, S. M. (1991). Feature matching, unique features, and the dynamics of the choice process: Predecision conflict and postdecision satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 411–430.Google Scholar
Imhoff, R., & Koch, A. (2017). How orthogonal are the Big Two of social perception? On the curvilinear relationship between agency and communion. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 122–137.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 193–206.Google Scholar
Kamin, L. J. (1969). Predictability, surprise, attention and conditioning. In Campbell, B. & Church, R. (Eds.), Punishment and aversive behavior (pp. 279–296). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Karlins, M., Coffman, T. L., & Walters, G. (1969). On the fading of social stereotypes: Studies in three generations of college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 1.Google Scholar
Katz, D., & Braly, K. W. (1935). Racial prejudice and racial stereotypes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 30, 175.Google Scholar
Koch, A., Alves, H., Krüger, T., & Unkelbach, C. (2016). A general valence asymmetry in similarity: Good is more alike than bad. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 1171.Google Scholar
Koch, A., Dorrough, A., Glöckner, A., & Imhoff, R. (2020). The ABC of society: Similarity in agency and beliefs predicts cooperation across groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 90, 103996.Google Scholar
Koch, A., Imhoff, R., Dotsch, R., Unkelbach, C., & Alves, H. (2016). The ABC of stereotypes about groups: Agency/socioeconomic success, conservative–progressive beliefs, and communion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 675.Google Scholar
Koch, A., Imhoff, R., Unkelbach, C., et al. (2020). Groups’ warmth is a personal matter: Understanding consensus on stereotype dimensions reconciles adversarial models of social evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 89, 103995.Google Scholar
Kovacs, B., & Hannan, M. T. (2010). The effects of category spanning depend on contrast. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 31, 175–201.Google Scholar
Krueger, J., & Clement, R. W. (1994). Memory-based judgments about multiple categories: A revision and extension of Tajfel’s accentuation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 35.Google Scholar
Krueger, J., Rothbart, M., & Sriram, N. (1989). Category learning and change: Differences in sensitivity to information that enhances or reduces intercategory distinctions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 866.Google Scholar
Kruschke, J. K. (2001). Toward a unified model of attention in associative learning. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 45, 812–863.Google Scholar
Kruschke, J. K. (2003). Attention in learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 171–175.Google Scholar
Langlois, J. H., & Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1, 115–121.Google Scholar
Leising, D., Ostrovski, O., & Borkenau, P. (2012). Vocabulary for describing disliked persons is more differentiated than vocabulary for describing liked persons. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 393–396.Google Scholar
Leslie, S. J. (2017). The original sin of cognition: Fear, prejudice, and generalization. Journal of Philosophy, 114, 393–421.Google Scholar
Leslie, S. J., Khemlani, S., & Glucksberg, S. (2011). Do all ducks lay eggs? The generic overgeneralization effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 15–31.Google Scholar
Mackintosh, N. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276.Google Scholar
Mackintosh, N. J. (1976). Overshadowing and stimulus intensity. Animal Learning & Behavior, 4, 186–192.Google Scholar
March, J. G. (1996). Learning to be risk averse. Psychological Review, 103, 309.Google Scholar
Ortony, A., & Turner, T. J. (1990). What’s basic about basic emotions? Psychological Review, 97, 315.Google Scholar
Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Perlman, D., & Oskamp, S. (1971). The effects of picture content and exposure frequency on evaluations of negroes and whites. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 503–514.Google Scholar
Potter, T., & Corneille, O. (2008). Locating attractiveness in the face space: Faces are more attractive when closer to their group prototype. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 615–622.Google Scholar
Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In Black, A. H. & Prokasy, W. F. (Eds.), Classical conditioning II (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Ric, F., Alexopoulos, T., Muller, D., & Aubé, B. (2013). Emotional norms for 524 French personality trait words. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 414–421.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., & Lloyd, B. B. (Eds.). (1978). Cognition and categorization. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rothbart, M., & Park, B. (1986). On the confirmability and disconfirmability of trait concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 131.Google Scholar
Rubio‐Fernandez, P. (2019). Overinformative speakers are cooperative: Revisiting the Gricean maxim of quantity. Cognitive Science, 43, e12797.Google Scholar
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7–59.Google Scholar
Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Kardes, F. R., & Gibson, B. D. (1991). The role of attribute knowledge and overall evaluations in comparative judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48, 131–146.Google Scholar
Savage, L. J. (1954; 2nd ed. 1972). The foundations of statistics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley; New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Schrauf, R. W., & Sanchez, J. (2004). The preponderance of negative emotion words in the emotion lexicon: A cross-generational and cross-linguistic study. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 25, 266–284.Google Scholar
Sears, D. O. (1983). The person-positivity bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 233.Google Scholar
Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1992). Language, interaction and social cognition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Sherman, S. J., Houston, D. A., & Eddy, D. (1999). Cancellation and focus: A feature-matching model of choice. European Review of Social Psychology, 10, 169–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: a social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193.Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals. Psychological Review: Monograph Supplements, 2, i.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327.Google Scholar
Unkelbach, C., Alves, H., & Koch, A. (2020). Negativity bias, positivity bias, and valence asymmetries: Explaining the differential processing of positive and negative information. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 115–187.Google Scholar
Unkelbach, C., & Fiedler, K. (2016). Contrastive CS–US relations reverse evaluative conditioning effects. Social Cognition, 34, 413–434.Google Scholar
Unkelbach, C., Koch, A., & Alves, H. (2019). The evaluative information ecology: On the frequency and diversity of “good” and “bad.” European Review of Social Psychology, 30, 216–270.Google Scholar
von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of games and economic behavior (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Winkielman, P., Halberstadt, J., Fazendeiro, T., & Catty, S. (2006). Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science, 17, 799–806.Google Scholar
Wyer, R. S. (1974). Cognitive organization and change: An information-processing approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27.Google Scholar

References

Bays, P. M., Wu, E. Y., & Husain, M. (2011). Storage and binding of object features in visual working memory. Neuropsychologia, 49(6), 1622–1631.Google Scholar
Biele, G., Erev, I., & Ert, E. (2009). Learning, risk attitude and hot stoves in restless bandit problems. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53(3), 155–167. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2008.05.006Google Scholar
Bott, F. M., Heck, D. W., & Meiser, T. (2020). Parameter validation in hierarchical MPT models by functional dissociation with continuous covariates: An application to contingency inference. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 98, 102388.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2020.102388Google Scholar
Bott, F. M., Kellen, D., & Klauer, K. C. (2021). Normative accounts of illusory correlations. Psychological Review, 128(5), 856–878. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000273Google Scholar
Bott, F. M., & Meiser, T. (2020). Pseudocontingency inference and choice: The role of information sampling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(9), 1624–1644. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000840Google Scholar
Bott, F. M., & Meiser, T. (in prep.). How information sampling strategies may counteract the persistence of initial beliefs about contingencies [Manuscript in preparation]. Department of Psychology, University of Mannheim.Google Scholar
Cheng, P. W., & Novick, L. R. (1990). A probabilistic contrast model of causal induction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(4), 545–567.Google Scholar
Denrell, J., & Le Mens, G. (2011). Seeking positive experiences can produce illusory correlations. Cognition, 119(3), 313–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.01.007Google Scholar
Denrell, J., & March, J. G. (2001). Adaptation as information restriction: The hot stove effect. Organization Science, 12(5), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.5.523.10092Google Scholar
Doherty, M. E., Mynatt, C. R., Tweney, R. D., & Schiavo, M. D. (1979). Pseudodiagnosticity. Acta Psychologica, 43(2), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(79)90017-9Google Scholar
Duncan, O. D., & Davis, B. (1953). An alternative to ecological correlation. American Sociological Review, 18(6), 665–666.Google Scholar
Eder, A. B., Fiedler, K., & Hamm-Eder, S. (2011). Illusory correlations revisited: The role of pseudocontingencies and working-memory capacity. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(3), 517–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2010.509917Google Scholar
Fiedler, K. (2010). Pseudocontingencies can override genuine contingencies between multiple cues. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(4), 504–509. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.4.504Google Scholar
Fiedler, K., & Freytag, P. (2004). Pseudocontingencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(4), 453–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.4.453Google Scholar
Fiedler, K., Freytag, P., & Meiser, T. (2009). Pseudocontingencies: An integrative account of an intriguing cognitive illusion. Psychological Review, 116(1), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014480Google Scholar
Fiedler, K., Freytag, P., & Unkelbach, C. (2007). Pseudocontingencies in a simulated classroom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 665–677. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.92.4.665Google Scholar
Fiedler, K., Kutzner, F., & Vogel, T. (2013). Pseudocontingencies: Logically unwarranted but smart inferences. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2013, 22(4), 324–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413480171Google Scholar
Fiedler, K., Russer, S., & Gramm, K. (1993). Illusory correlations and memory performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 111–136. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1993.1006Google Scholar
Fleig, H., Meiser, T., Ettlin, F., & Rummel, J. (2017). Statistical numeracy as a moderator of (pseudo)contingency effects on decision behavior. Acta Psychologica, 174, 68–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.01.002Google Scholar
Gaissmaier, W., & Schooler, L. J. (2008). The smart potential behind probability matching. Cognition, 109(3), 416–422. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.09.007Google Scholar
Hamilton, D. L., & Gifford, R. K. (1976). Illusory correlation in interpersonal perception: A cognitive basis of stereotypic judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12(4), 392–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(76)80006-6Google Scholar
Harris, C., Fiedler, K., Marien, H., & Custers, R. (2020). Biased preferences through exploitation: How initial biases are consolidated in reward-rich environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(10), 1855–1877. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000754Google Scholar
Hau, R., Pleskac, T. J., Kiefer, J., & Hertwig, R. (2008). The description–experience gap in risky choice: The role of sample size and experienced probabilities. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21(5), 493–518. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.598Google Scholar
Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E. U., & Erev, I. (2004). Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychological Science, 15(8), 534–539. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00715.xGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, L. (2015). Longitudinal analysis: Modeling within-person fluctuation and change. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hütter, M., & Niese, Z. A. (2023). Sampling as preparedness in evaluative learning. In Fiedler, K., Juslin, P., & Denrell, J. (Eds.), Sampling in judgment and decision making (pp. 131–152). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jeffreys, H. (1939). Theory of probability (1st ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Jekel, M., Glöckner, A., & Bröder, A. (2018). A new and unique prediction for cue-search in a parallel-constraint satisfaction network model: The attraction search effect. Psychological Review, 125(5), 744–768. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000107Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 430–454. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3Google Scholar
Kareev, Y., & Fiedler, K. (2006). Nonproportional sampling and the amplification of correlations. Psychological Science, 17(8), 715–720. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01771.xGoogle Scholar
Klauer, K. C. (2015). Mathematical modeling. In Gawronski, B. & Bodenhausen, G. V. (Eds.), Theory and explanation in social psychology (pp. 371–389). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Kutzner, F., & Fiedler, K. (2017). Stereotypes as pseudocontingencies. European Review of Social Psychology, 28(1), 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2016.1260238Google Scholar
Kutzner, F., Vogel, T., Freytag, P., & Fiedler, K. (2011). Contingency inferences driven by base rates: Valid by sampling. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(3), 211–221.Google Scholar
Le Mens, G., Kareev, Y., & Avrahami, J. (2016). The evaluative advantage of novel alternatives: An information-sampling account. Psychological Science, 27(2), 161–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615615581Google Scholar
Lejarraga, T., & Hertwig, R. (2017). How the threat of losses makes people explore more than the promise of gains. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(3), 708–720. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423–016-1158-7Google Scholar
Meiser, T., & Hewstone, M. (2004). Cognitive processes in stereotype formation: The role of correct contingency learning for biased group judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 599–614. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.599Google Scholar
Meiser, T., & Hewstone, M. (2006). Illusory and spurious correlations: Distinct phenomena or joint outcomes of exemplar-based category learning? European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(3), 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.304Google Scholar
Meiser, T., & Hewstone, M. (2010). Contingency learning and stereotype formation: Illusory and spurious correlations revisited. European Review of Social Psychology, 21(1), 285–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2010.543308Google Scholar
Meiser, T., Rummel, J., & Fleig, H. (2018). Pseudocontingencies and choice behavior in probabilistic environments with context-dependent outcomes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(1), 50–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000432Google Scholar
Newell, B. R., Rakow, T., Weston, N. J., & Shanks, D. R. (2004). Search strategies in decision making: The success of “success.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17(2), 117–137. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.465Google Scholar
Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex (trans. Anrep, G. V.). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Prager, J., Krueger, J. I., & Fiedler, K. (2018). Towards a deeper understanding of impression formation: New insights gained from a cognitive-ecological perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(3), 379–397. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000123Google Scholar
Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In Black, A. H. & Prokasy, W. F. (Eds.), Classical conditioning ii: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York: Appelton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Scharf, S. E., Wiegelmann, M., & Bröder, A. (2019). Information search in everyday decisions: The generalizability of the attraction search effect. Judgment and Decision Making, 14(4), 488–512.Google Scholar
Shanks, D. R. (2007). Associationism and cognition: Human contingency learning at 25. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(3), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210601000581Google Scholar
Simpson, E. H. (1951). The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 13(2), 238–241.Google Scholar
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. L. (1931). Human learning: The messenger lectures, Cornell University, fifth series, 1928–29. Century.Google Scholar
Treisman, A. (1998). Feature binding, attention and object perception. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 353(1373), 1295–1306.Google Scholar
Vogel, T., Freytag, P., Kutzner, F., & Fiedler, K. (2013). Pseudocontingencies derived from categorically organized memory representations. Memory & Cognition, 41(8), 1185–1199. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421–013-0331-8Google Scholar
Waldmann, M. R., & Hagmayer, Y. (2001). Estimating causal strength: The role of structural knowledge and processing effort. Cognition, 82(1), 27–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010–0277(01)00141-XGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, M. E., & Treisman, A. M. (2002). Binding in short-term visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131(1), 48–64.Google Scholar

References

Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D., & Welch, I. (1992). A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades. Journal of Political Economy, 100(5), 992–1026.Google Scholar
Blossfeld, H.-P., & Rohwer, G. (2001). Techniques of event history modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chevalier, J. A., & Mayzlin, D. (2006). The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 345–354.Google Scholar
De Langhe, B., Fernbach, P. M., & Lichtenstein, D. R. (2016). Navigating by the stars: Investigating the actual and perceived validity of online user ratings. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(6), 817–833. http://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv047Google Scholar
Dellarocas, C., Zhang, X. M., & Awad, N. F. (2007). Exploring the value of online product reviews in forecasting sales: The case of motion pictures. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(4), 23–45. http://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20087Google Scholar
Denrell, J. (2005). Why most people disapprove of me: Experience sampling in impression formation. Psychological Review, 112(4), 951–978. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.951Google Scholar
Denrell, J., & March, J. (2001). Adaptation as information restriction: The hot stove effect. Organization Science, 12(5), 523–538. http://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.5.523.10092Google Scholar
Germano, F., Gómez, V., & Le Mens, G. (2019, May). The few-get-richer: A surprising consequence of popularity-based rankings? In The World Wide Web Conference (pp. 2764–2770).Google Scholar
Godes, D., & Silva, J. C. (2012). Sequential and temporal dynamics of online opinion. Marketing Science, 31(3), 448–473. http://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1110.0653Google Scholar
Hsu, G., Koçak, Ö., & Kovács, B. (2018). Co-opt or coexist? A study of medical cannabis dispensaries’ identity-based responses to recreational-use legalization in Colorado and Washington. Organization Science, 29(1), 172–190.Google Scholar
Hsu, G., Kovács, B., & Koçak, Ö. (2019). Experientially diverse customers and organizational adaptation in changing demand landscapes: A study of US cannabis markets, 2014–2016. Strategic Management Journal, 40(13), 2214–2241.Google Scholar
Kovács, B., & Sharkey, A. J. (2014). The paradox of publicity: How awards can negatively affect the evaluation of quality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
Le Mens, G., Denrell, J., Kovács, B., & Karaman, H. (2019). Information sampling, judgment, and the environment: Application to the effect of popularity on evaluations. Topics in Cognitive Science, 11(2), 358–373.Google Scholar
Li, X., & Hitt, L. M. (2008). Self-selection and information role of online product reviews. Information Systems Research, 19(4), 456–474. http://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0154Google Scholar
McAuley, J., Pandey, R., & Leskovec, J. (2015a). Inferring networks of substitutable and complementary products (pp. 785–794). Presented at the 21st ACM SIGKDD International Conference, New York. New York: ACM Press. http://doi.org/10.1145/2783258.2783381Google Scholar
McAuley, J., Targett, C., Shi, Q., & van den Hengel, A. (2015b). Image-based recommendations on styles and substitutes (pp. 43–52). Presented at the 38th International ACM SIGIR Conference, New York. New York: ACM Press. http://doi.org/10.1145/2766462.2767755Google Scholar
Moe, W. W., & Schweidel, D. A. (2012). Online product opinions: Incidence, evaluation, and evolution. Marketing Science, 31(3), 372–386. http://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1110.0662Google Scholar
Muchnik, L., Aral, S., & Taylor, S. J. (2013). Social influence bias: A randomized experiment. Science, 341(6146), 647–651. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240466Google Scholar
Park, S., Shin, W., & Xie, J. (2021). The fateful first consumer review. Marketing Science, 40(3), 481–507, mksc.2020.1264. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2020.1264Google Scholar
Prager, J., Krueger, J. I., & Fiedler, K. (2018). Towards a deeper understanding of impression formation: New insights gained from a cognitive-ecological perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(3), 379.Google Scholar
Salganik, M. J., Dodds, P. S., & Watts, D. J. (2006). Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science, 311(5762), 854–856. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1121066Google Scholar
Schlosser, A. E. (2005). Posting versus lurking: Communicating in a multiple audience context. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(2), 260–265.Google Scholar
Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (1998). Reinforcement learning: An introduction. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. L. (1927). The law of effect. American Journal of Psychology, 39(1/4), 212–222.Google Scholar
Wan, M., & McAuley, J. (2018, September). Item recommendation on monotonic behavior chains. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (pp. 86–94).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save 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 saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save 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 saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×