Article2014

Goal-driven reasoning overcomes cell D neglect in contingency judgements

André Mata · Leonel Garcia‐Marques · Mário B. Ferreira · Cristina Mendonça

13 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Cognitive Psychology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference

Abstract

Research on contingency judgement typically shows cell weight inequality such that the information in cell A of a contingency table is considered more relevant than the information in cell D, even though both kinds of information have the same confirmatory meaning. Two studies tested whether goal-driven reasoning can lead people to realise the value of the information in cell D. Participants' goal to defend a particular conclusion for which the information in cell D was helpful was manipulated. Whereas participants who did not have that goal displayed the usual cell D neglect, goal-driven participants for whom cell D contained goal-relevant information considered it important. More importantly, in subsequent tasks with different contents where participants were no longer driven by any goal, they continued to consider information in cell D relevant (Study 1), and they were more likely to make correct contingency judgements, which depended on considering cell D (Study 2).

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 13 citations exist upstream.

References

1972Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness 1994A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection.1981Judgment of covariation by social perceivers.2002Motivated Reasoning and Performance on the was on Selection Task 1987Problem solving in judgment under uncertainty.1982Biased Questions in Judgment of Covariation Studies 1993Assessment of an information integration account of contingency judgment with examination of subjective cell importance and method of information presentation.1990Contributions of specific cell information to judgments of interevent contingency.

Cited by

2017Motivated Responding in Studies of Factual Learning 2022Pseudocontingencies: Flexible contingency inferences from base rates 2016Judgment of Covariation: A Review 2024Contingency inferences from base rates: A parsimonious strategy?

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.