| Abstract: | In 2 experiments, 295 undergraduates judged either ability (given performance and effort information) or effort (given performance and ability information) where both the reliability and value of the given information varied. Ss made judgments of IQ (or study time) based on information about the effort a person expended in studying (or IQ), student's performance, or both. Individual differences were found in the judged relationship between ability and effort. Some judged ability and effort to be positively related, whereas others judged ability and effort to be negatively related. These groups also differed in the way information reliability influenced their judgments. The positive group showed effects that agree with either an averaging or correlational model: Higher reliability of one type of information was correlated with a lesser effect of the other type of information. For the negative group, an increase in the reliability of one type of information actually increased the effect of the other type of information, a result that is inconsistent with the averaging model. Both an expectancy-contrast model and a correlational model can account for the results of the negative group. The different effects of information reliability for the 2 groups can be interpreted as evidence of 2 different inference processes. Results show flexibility of human judgment strategies and the need for research considering variables that influence strategy use. (24 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
