A research paradigm for the study of interpersonal learning.

Hammond, Kenneth R.; Wilkins, Marilyn M.; Todd, Frederick J.

doi:10.1037/h0023103

Cited by 46 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 26 publications

(19 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1 We excluded from consideration works that failed to model the environmental side of the lens (i.e., for which criterion data were missing), studies that used aggregate as opposed to individual judgments (see, e.g., Gifford, 1994) as well as research within the conflict resolution paradigm in which the criterion for one person is the judgments of others (see, e.g., Hammond, Wilkins, & Todd, 1966 Most of these studies examined judgments in more than one environment or experimental…”

Section: Database For the Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of Linear Judgment: A Meta-Analysis of Lens Model Studies

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The mathematical representation of Brunswik's lens model has been used extensively to study human judgment and provides a unique opportunity to conduct a meta-analysis of studies that covers roughly five decades. Specifically, we analyze statistics of the "lens model equation" (Tucker, 1964) associated with 259 different task environments obtained from 78 papers. In short, we find -on average -fairly high levels of judgmental achievement and note that people can achieve similar levels of cognitive performance in both noisy and predictable environments. Although overall performance varies little between laboratory and field studies, both differ in terms of components of performance and types of environments (numbers of cues and redundancy). An analysis of learning studies reveals that the most effective form of feedback is information about the task. We also analyze empirically when bootstrapping is more likely to occur. We conclude by indicating shortcomings of the kinds of studies conducted to date, limitations in the lens model methodology, and possibilities for future research.Keywords: judgment, lens model, linear models, learning, bootstrapping Determinants of linear judgment 3 Since the 1960s, many psychologists have used the framework of Brunswik's (1952) lens model to study processes where humans make predictions of specific criteria (see, e.g., Brehmer & Joyce, 1988;Cooksey, 1996;Hastie & Kameda, 2005). For example, a person might make a judgment (i.e., prediction) about another person's intelligence, about the likelihood of rain, whether a job candidate will be successful, and so on. In all these cases, the simple beauty of Brunswik's model lies in recognizing that both the person's judgment and the actual criterion predicted can be thought of as two separate functions of cues that are available in the environment. Thus, the accuracy of human judgment depends on the extent to which the function that describes it matches its environmental counterpart.But how good or accurate are people at making judgments and on what does this depend? These are important questions that have generated considerable controversy in the psychological literature (Cohen, 1981;Gigerenzer, 1996;Kahneman & Tversky, 1996). Whereas it is unlikely that these questions can be answered satisfactorily by any particular approach, an advantage of research conducted within the Brunswikian tradition is the use of a common methodology for formalizing the lens model. Thus, not only can researchers within this tradition communicate results within a common framework, it is possible to aggregate results quantitatively across many studies and make statements that reflect the accumulation of results. This is the purpose of the current paper in which we present a meta-analysis of studies conducted using the lens model over a period of five decades.The paper is organized as follows. We first describe the mathematical formulation of the lens model. Second, we specify how we identified and included particular studies Determinants of linear ju...

show abstract

Section: Database For the Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of Linear Judgment: A Meta-Analysis of Lens Model Studies

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Holding the predictability of the environment constant (i.e., R e ), performance (both r a and LC accuracy) is somewhat better with fewer cues, 15 We also excluded studies from the interpersonal conflict paradigm where the criterion for one's person's judgments is the judgment of another person (see, e.g., Hammond, Wilkins, & Todd, 1966). and with equal as opposed to differential weighting functions.…”

Section: About Here ------------------------------------------mentioning

confidence: 99%

On Heuristic and Linear Models of Judgment: Mapping the Demand for Knowledge

Hogarth

Karelaia

2006

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on judgment and decision making presents a confusing picture of human abilities. For example, much research has emphasized the dysfunctional aspects of judgmental heuristics, and yet, other findings suggest that these can be highly effective. A further line of research has modeled judgment as resulting from "as if" linear models. This paper illuminates the distinctions in these approaches by providing a common analytical framework based on the central theoretical premise that understanding human performance requires specifying how characteristics of the decision rules people use interact with the demands of the tasks they face. Our work synthesizes the analytical tools of "lens model" research with novel methodology developed to specify the effectiveness of heuristics in different environments and allows direct comparisons between the different approaches. We illustrate with both theoretical analyses and simulations. We further link our results to the empirical literature by a meta-analysis of lens model studies and estimate both human and heuristic performance in the same tasks. Our results highlight the trade-off between linear models and heuristics. Whereas the former are cognitively demanding, the latter are simple to use. However, they require knowledge -and thus "maps" -of when and which heuristic to employ.Keywords: Decision making; heuristics; linear models; lens model; judgmental biases.JEL classification: D81, M10. 3Two classes of models have dominated research on judgment and decision making over the last decades. In one, explicit recognition is given to the costs and limits of information processing and people are assumed to use simplifying heuristics -typically making use of only part of the information available (Kahneman, Slovic, & Tversky, 1982;Gigerenzer, Todd, & the ABC Research Group, 1999). In the other, it is assumed that people can integrate all the information at hand and that this is combined and weighted "as if" using an algebraic -typically linear -model (Anderson, 1981;Brehmer, 1994;Hammond, 1996).Research on these models has been conducted within different traditions with few attempts to unify the two approaches (however, see Hammond, 1990). Whereas such unification is not our goal, we recognize the validity of both approaches and seek to illuminate their complementarities. For example, recent research suggests that people can process information in distinctive ways (cf., Chaiken & Trope, 1999), variously described as "experiential" vs. "rational" (Epstein, 1994), "System 1" vs."System 2" (Stanovich & West, 1998), or "tacit" vs. "deliberate" (Hogarth, 2001).The former denote processes that are intuitive or heuristic whereas the latter are the outcomes of more deliberative processes. We do not propose a one-to-one correspondence between the dual process approach, on the one hand, and heuristic and algebraic models, on the other hand. However, the analogy emphasizes the advantages of seeking complementarities.The topic of heuristics has been central to research on judgm...

show abstract

“…(This social judgment theory is theoretically tied to Brunswi ck's "lens model" (Hammond , 1 966;Slovic & Lichtenstein , 1971) and seems to bear virtually no relati onship with the well-known social judgment theory of Sherif and Hovland (1961), related to persuasi on and attitude change.) Alth ough SiT was initially concerned with study ing the cognitive characteristics of conflict situations (Hammond , Wilkins, & Todd , 1966), recent developments have suggested that SiT anal yses of interpersona l conflict might be useful for bringinggroups of divergen t individuals closer to consensus (Brehme r , 1976 showing that "the cognitive differences could be identified and accounted for"…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%