Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T01:17:18.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 14 - Thurstonian Uncertainty in Self-Determined Judgment and Decision Making

from Part IV - Truncation and Stopping Rules

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2023

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

Summary

To understand and explain sample-based impression formation, it is necessary to consider both the Brunswikian uncertainty caused by sampling from the stimulus environment and the Thurstonian uncertainty arising from the cognitive processing thereof. Impression judgments must be formed in view of both sources of uncertainty. Even when an ecological sample of a target’s traits is held constant, the resulting distribution of target information in the judge’s mind can vary substantively as a function of semantic and affective responses, top-down inferences, and contextual influences. In the research reviewed in the present chapter, we investigate the interplay of Brunswikian and Thurstonian sampling in a person-impression task based on self-truncated trait samples, in which judges can stop sampling at the very moment when their internal mindset optimally prepares them to form a distinct impression. This task setting produces distinct self-truncation effects; the resulting impression judgments are polarized, conflict-free, and typically driven by small samples (after early truncation). When exactly the same traits are presented in a yoked-control design to other judges, who cannot exploit self-truncation effects, their judgment patterns are similar but clearly less pronounced, reflecting the same Brunswikian trait samples detached from the Thurstonian mindset.

Type
Chapter
Information
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

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1975). A Bayesian analysis of attribution processes. Psychological Bulletin, 82(2), 261277. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076477Google 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(6), 896909. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-015-0515-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0055756Google Scholar
Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (1993). Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review, 100(3), 432459. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.100.3.432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coenen, A., & Gureckis, T. M. (2016). The distorting effect of deciding to stop sampling. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
De Finetti, B. (1937). La prévision: Ses lois logiques, ses sources subjectives [Foresight: Its logical laws, its subjective sources]. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré, 17, 168.Google Scholar
Denrell, J. (2005). Why most people disapprove of me: Experience sampling in impression formation. Psychological Review, 112(4), 951978. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.951Google Scholar
Desender, K., Boldt, A., & Yeung, N. (2018). Subjective confidence predicts information seeking in decision making. Psychological Science, 29(5), 761778. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617744771CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dieckmann, A., & Rieskamp, J. (2007). The influence of information redundancy on probabilistic inferences. Memory & Cognition, 35(7), 18011813. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193511CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dougherty, M. R. P. (2001). Integration of the ecological and error models of overconfidence using a multiple-trace memory model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(4), 579599. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.579Google Scholar
Edwards, W. (1965). Optimal strategies for seeking information: Models for statistics, choice reaction times, and human information processing. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 2(2), 312329. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(65)90007-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erev, I., Wallsten, T. S., & Budescu, D. V. (1994). Simultaneous over- and underconfidence: The role of error in judgment processes. Psychological Review, 101(3), 519527. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.519Google Scholar
Fiedler, K. (2000). Beware of samples! A cognitive-ecological sampling approach to judgment biases. Psychological Review, 107(4), 659676. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.4.659CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiedler, K., & Wänke, M. (2009). The cognitive-ecological approach to rationality in social psychology. Social Cognition, 27(5), 699732. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2009.27.5.699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, R., Hertwig, R., & Rieskamp, J. (2014). Fear shapes information acquisition in decisions from experience. Cognition, 132(1), 9099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.009Google Scholar
Galton, F. (1894). Natural inheritance. Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gino, F., Brooks, A. W., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2012). Anxiety, advice, and the ability to discern: Feeling anxious motivates individuals to seek and use advice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 497512. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026413CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hadar, L., & Fox, C. R. (2009). Information asymmetry in decision from description versus decision from experience. Judgment and Decision Making, 4, 317325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertwig, R., & Pleskac, T. J. (2010). Decisions from experience: Why small samples? Cognition, 115, 225237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.12.009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Juslin, P., & Olsson, H. (1997). Thurstonian and Brunswikian origins of uncertainty in judgment: A sampling model of confidence in sensory discrimination. Psychological Review, 104(2), 344366. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.344CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Juslin, P., Olsson, H., & Björkman, M. (1997). Brunswikian and Thurstonian origins of bias in probability assessment: On the interpretation of stochastic components of judgment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10(3), 189209. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199709)10:3<189::AID-BDM258>3.0.CO;2-4Google 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(8), 11711192. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000243Google Scholar
Kutzner, F. L., & Fiedler, K. (2015). No correlation, no evidence for attention shift in category learning: Different mechanisms behind illusory correlations and the inverse base-rate effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 5875. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038462Google Scholar
Lejarraga, T., Hertwig, R., & Gonzalez, C. (2012). How choice ecology influences search in decisions from experience. Cognition, 124(3), 334342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.002Google Scholar
Levy, L. H. (1967). The effects of variance on personality impression formation. Journal of Personality, 35(2), 179193. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01423.xGoogle Scholar
Parducci, A. (1965). Category judgment: A range-frequency model. Psychological Review, 72(6), 407418. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022602Google Scholar
Peterson, W. W. T. G., Birdsall, T., & Fox, W. (1954). The theory of signal detectability. Transactions of the IRE Professional Group on Information Theory, 4(4), 171212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pleskac, T. J., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2010). Two-stage dynamic signal detection: A theory of choice, decision time, and confidence. Psychological Review, 117(3), 864901. doi:10.1037/A0019737Google Scholar
Prager, J., & Fiedler, K. (2021a). Forming impressions from self-truncated samples of traits: Interplay of Thurstonian and Brunswikian sampling effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(3), 474497. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000274.suppGoogle Scholar
Prager, J., & Fiedler, K. (2021b). Small-group homogeneity: A crucial ingredient to inter-group sampling and impression formation. Unpublished manuscript, Heidelberg University.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), 379397. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000123Google Scholar
Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85(2), 59108. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.85.2.59Google Scholar
Reeder, G. D., & Brewer, M. B. (1979). A schematic model of dispositional attribution in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review, 86(1), 6179. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.86.1.61Google Scholar
Rothbart, M., & Park, B. (1986). On the confirmability and disconfirmability of trait concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(1), 131142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.1.131Google Scholar
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 513523. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.513Google Scholar
Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1987). Social judgment and social memory: The role of cue diagnosticity in negativity, positivity, and extremity biases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4), 689699. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.4.689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105(1), 131142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.131Google Scholar
Soll, J. B. (1999). Intuitive theories of information: Beliefs about the value of redundancy. Cognitive Psychology, 38(2), 317346. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1998.0699Google Scholar
Stewart, N., Chater, N., & Brown, G. D. A. (2006). Decision by sampling. Cognitive Psychology, 53(1), 126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.10.003Google Scholar
Tanner, W. P., Jr., & Swets, J. A. (1954). A decision-making theory of visual detection. Psychological Review, 61(6), 401409. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0058700CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thurstone, L. L. (1927a). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34(4), 273286. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070288Google Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. (1927b). Psychophysical analysis. American Journal of Psychology, 38, 368389. https://doi.org/10.2307/1415006Google Scholar
Trope, Y., & Bassok, M. (1982). Confirmatory and diagnosing strategies in social information gathering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(1), 2234. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.1.22Google Scholar
Unkelbach, C., Fiedler, K., Bayer, M., Stegmüller, M., & Danner, D. (2008). Why positive information is processed faster: The density hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 3649. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.36Google Scholar
Wulff, D. U., Hills, T. T., & Hertwig, R. (2015). How short- and long-run aspirations impact search and choice in decisions from experience. Cognition, 144, 2937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.07.006Google 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
×