Effects of a Common Linguistic Misrepresentation on Judgments about the Relationship between Height and Weight

Abstract

Researchers have debated whether laypeople can detect covariation and have tried to identify conditions that might facilitate or retard this ability. Language, especially linguistic representation of variables, seems important to consider since misrepresentation appears to be relatively common in linguistic exchanges. In the present theory-based experiment, 16 subjects were asked to make judgments about the relationship between height and either weight (heavy or light) or bodyfat (fat or thin). Data provided evidence of a powerful illusory association, that is, if tall, then thin; if short, then fat, and there was no compelling evidence to suggest that subjects understood the relationship between height and weight.

A Preliminary Study of the Effect of Imaginary Sexual Stimulation on the Perceived Covariation Between Freedom and Responsibility

“…The effects for framing are relevant because in previous studies (Jenkins et al, 1994;McGahan et al, 2000) using similar measures, framing effects were not detected. There are three possible explanations for these results.…”

“…The items used in this study were modeled closely after Jenkins et al (1994) and McGahan et al (20001, and in those studies no effects for framing were noted. The priming manipulation that targeted the experiential system may have affected the framing as well as the endorsement of the items.…”

“…Other researchers have used what can be regarded as naturally occurring variables such as trait presence and the likelihood of dating (Harkness, DeBono, & Borgida, 1985) or height, weight, and body fat (Jenkins, McGahan, & Richard, 1994; McGahan, Williamson, McDougal, & Pryor, 2000). It is with this thought in mind that in the present research, we sought to understand how the constructs of freedom and responsibility covary in the "mind" of the layperson.…”

“…Our dependent variables consisted of sets of alternate questions similar to those used by Jenkins et al (1994) and McGahan et al (2000) to assess the strength of beliefs about perceived freedom and responsibility. In studies designed to access the perceived relationships between height, weight, and body fat, these researchers created a series of alternate-forms questions designed to access relevant sample spaces (Sherman, McMullen, & Gavanski, 1992).…”

The Equivalence of Contingency Structure for Intuitive Covariation Judgments About Height, Weight, and Body Fat

“…First, each of these is fairly common and more concrete than abstract. In addition, the studies by McGahan and colleagues (Jenkins, McGahan, & Richard, 1994) have demonstrated that judgments about these variables are highly reliable. Moreover, judgments about weight and body fat are unambiguous; there are strong indications that people perceive a negative correlation between height and body fat that may be illusory; judgments about height and weight are almost completely inaccurate; and, for the within-subject designs used by McGahan et al (1998), there tends to be a lack of differentiation between weight and body fat relative to covariation judgments involving height.2…”