Why versus how often: Causal reasoning and the incidence of judgmental bias

Locksley, Anne; Stangor, Charles

doi:10.1016/0022-1031(84)90038-6

Cited by 49 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Negative events and failures to act, on the other hand, have mUltiple sufficient causes and are not subject to conjunction effects. This interpretation of the conjunction fallacy in terms of the perceived sufficiency of explana tions is also supported by the work ofAbelson et al (1987), Jaspars (1983 ),and Read (1987), and is also consistent with work byLocksley & Stangor (1984).In a different interpretation of the conjunction fallacy in social explanation, Zuckerman et al(1986) maintained that in estimating the probability of an interpretation for an event, judges may either assess whether the event can give rise to the interpretation (an inference set) or whether the interpretation Annu.Rev. Psychol.…”

supporting

confidence: 79%

Social Cognition

Sherman¹,

Judd²,

Park³

1989

Annu. Rev. Psychol.

161

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

supporting

confidence: 79%

Social Cognition

Sherman¹,

Judd²,

Park³

1989

Annu. Rev. Psychol.

161

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Uncertainty about one's feelings toward a product seems to motivate consumers to engage in causal analysis (Scott 1981). Other research has examined how causal inferences differ from other kinds of inferences, e.g., Locksley and Stangor's (1984) work on "how" versus "why" questions. Consumer researchers will probably want to follow up on Wilson and Dunn's (1986) finding that attitudes toward usage of products differ depending on whether users introspect about reasons for their attitudes towards products or their feelings about products.…”

Section: Current Issues In Attribution Researchmentioning

confidence: 98%

Recent Attribution Research in Consumer Behavior: A Review and New Directions

Folkes¹

1988

J CONSUM RES

826

584

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent consumer behavior research testing attribution theory principles is summarized and critiqued. Most studies on antecedents of causal inferences focus on how information about a product influences attributions, how the discounting effect influences liking for products, and how self-perception processes influence willingness to participate in marketing research. Research examining consequences of causal inferences focuses on product satisfaction. Major trends in attribution theory and future research directions are indicated.A ttribution research is concerned with all aspects of causal inferences: how people arrive at causal inferences, what sort of inferences they make, and what the consequences of these inferences are. Nine years ago, Mizerski, Golden, and Kernan (1979) provided an overview of four major attribution theories and reviewed the relevant consumer behavior research from 1971 to 1978. Since that time attribution theory has remained a popular approach in social psychology (e.g., see recent reviews by Harvey and Weary 1984;Ross and Fletcher 1985); however, most of us probably agree that despite a promising beginning, attribution theory has had little impact on the field of consumer behavior.This apparent neglect is surprising. Understanding consumers' perceptions of cause-and-effect relationships would seem to be central to consumer behavior. It is this author's opinion that many, ifnot most, products and services are purchased because consumers infer a causal relationship: they believe that analgesics reduce pain, deodorants improve one's social life, athletic shoes enhance performance, and so on. As the present review will substantiate, attribution theory is a rich and welldeveloped approach that has a great deal to say about a wide range of consumer behavior issues. For example, attribution research indicates when consumers recommend products to other consumers and when they complain about problems. It sheds light on such questions in persuasion as source credibility and two-sided messages. Attribution research illuminates the relationship between consumers' attitudes and behaviors. provided helpful comments on an earlier version of this article. 548 havior, as well as to review research since the Mizerski et al. article. Many recent studies address issues not raised in the Mizerski et al. review, which focused on theories forming the foundation of attribution research (Bem 1972;Heider 1958;Jones and Davis 1965;Kelley 1967 Kelley , 1973. Besides summarizing studies in consumer behavior journals, the present review includes consumer behavior experiments published in psychology journals. When studies on a topic are published in a variety of outlets, as is true of attribution research in consumer behavior, its impact may be diffused. By consolidating the research, this review aims to more clearly identify issues that have attracted the interest of investigators. A secondary aim is to identify up-to-date reviews of specific topics in attribution research to aid those who wish to explore an issue i...

show abstract

“…Meanwhile, conditions have been identified that seem to encourage the use of base rates, and although the effect of the conditions is often reported as weak, this has led to speculations about additional or alternative explanations. The first is the conjecture that base rates are used to the degree they are perceived to be "causally" relevant (Ajzen, 1977;, a conjecture recently modified by the assertion that only causally nonredundant base rates are used (Locksley & Stangor, 1984). The second conjecture is that base rates are neglected insofar as they are remote, pallid and abstract, as opposed to the vividness, salience, and concreteness of individuating information (Nisbett & Borgida, 1975;Nisbett & Ross, 1980).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Presentation and content: The use of base rates as a continuous variable.

Gigerenzer

Hell²,

Blank³

1988

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

275

150

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do subjects, in probability revision experiments, generally neglect base rates due to the use of a representativeness heuristic, or does the use of base rates depend on what we call the internal problem representation? In Experiment 1, we used Kahneman and Tversky's (1973) engineerlawyer problem, where random sampling of descriptions is crucial to the internal representation of the problem as one in probability revision. If random sampling was performed and observed by the subjects themselves, then their judgments conformed more to Bayesian theory than to the representativeness hypothesis. If random sampling was only verbally asserted, judgments followed the representativeness heuristic. In Experiment 2 we used the soccer problem, which has the same formal structure but which the subjects' every day experience already represents as a probability revision problem. With this change in content, subjects' judgments were indistinguishable from Bayesian performance. We conclude that by manipulating presentation and content, one can elicit either base rate neglect or base rate use, as well as points in between. This result suggests that representativeness is neither an all-purpose mental strategy nor even a tendency, but rather a function of the content and the presentation of crucial information.

show abstract

Why versus how often: Causal reasoning and the incidence of judgmental bias

Cited by 49 publications

References 19 publications

Social Cognition

Social Cognition

Recent Attribution Research in Consumer Behavior: A Review and New Directions

Presentation and content: The use of base rates as a continuous variable.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About