Loading…
Inferences of ability and effort: Evidence for two different processes
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 eff...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of personality and social psychology 1984-02, Vol.46 (2), p.249-268 |
---|---|
Main Author: | |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a273t-690fd7043644edbb2164b648df69884fcb4c1cc537c6aac670a641daef6c79e33 |
---|---|
cites | |
container_end_page | 268 |
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 249 |
container_title | Journal of personality and social psychology |
container_volume | 46 |
creator | Surber, Colleen F |
description | 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) |
doi_str_mv | 10.1037/0022-3514.46.2.249 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_614299095</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>614299095</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a273t-690fd7043644edbb2164b648df69884fcb4c1cc537c6aac670a641daef6c79e33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kM9LwzAYhoMoOKf_gKegXlvzq0njTcamg4EXPYevaQIds61Jp-y_N3VjO3n6-OB53hdehG4pySnh6pEQxjJeUJELmbOcCX2GJlRznVFOi3M0OQKX6CrGNSFEFIxN0GLZehdca13EncdQNZtm2GFoa-y878LwhOffTT0COL14-Olw3fg_Z8B96JIYXbxGFx420d0c7hR9LObvs9ds9faynD2vMmCKD5nUxNeKCC6FcHVVMSpFJUVZe6nLUnhbCUutLbiyEsBKRUAKWoPz0irtOJ-iu31uav7aujiYdbcNbao0kgqmNdFFgu7_gyjThSaFZDRRbE_Z0MUYnDd9aD4h7AwlZhzVjJuZcTMjpGEmjZqkh0M0RAsbH6C1TTyaWrFS6fKEQQ-mjzsLYWjsxiUy9qe0XykBgfA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>614299095</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Inferences of ability and effort: Evidence for two different processes</title><source>EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES</source><creator>Surber, Colleen F</creator><creatorcontrib>Surber, Colleen F</creatorcontrib><description>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)</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-3514</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-1315</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.46.2.249</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JPSPB2</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington, DC: American Psychological Association</publisher><subject>Ability ; Attribution ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cognition. Intelligence ; Energy Expenditure ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Human ; Inference ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychology. Psychophysiology ; Reasoning. Problem solving</subject><ispartof>Journal of personality and social psychology, 1984-02, Vol.46 (2), p.249-268</ispartof><rights>1984 American Psychological Association</rights><rights>1984 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>1984, American Psychological Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a273t-690fd7043644edbb2164b648df69884fcb4c1cc537c6aac670a641daef6c79e33</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=9728798$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Surber, Colleen F</creatorcontrib><title>Inferences of ability and effort: Evidence for two different processes</title><title>Journal of personality and social psychology</title><description>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)</description><subject>Ability</subject><subject>Attribution</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cognition. Intelligence</subject><subject>Energy Expenditure</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Inference</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychophysiology</subject><subject>Reasoning. Problem solving</subject><issn>0022-3514</issn><issn>1939-1315</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1984</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kM9LwzAYhoMoOKf_gKegXlvzq0njTcamg4EXPYevaQIds61Jp-y_N3VjO3n6-OB53hdehG4pySnh6pEQxjJeUJELmbOcCX2GJlRznVFOi3M0OQKX6CrGNSFEFIxN0GLZehdca13EncdQNZtm2GFoa-y878LwhOffTT0COL14-Olw3fg_Z8B96JIYXbxGFx420d0c7hR9LObvs9ds9faynD2vMmCKD5nUxNeKCC6FcHVVMSpFJUVZe6nLUnhbCUutLbiyEsBKRUAKWoPz0irtOJ-iu31uav7aujiYdbcNbao0kgqmNdFFgu7_gyjThSaFZDRRbE_Z0MUYnDd9aD4h7AwlZhzVjJuZcTMjpGEmjZqkh0M0RAsbH6C1TTyaWrFS6fKEQQ-mjzsLYWjsxiUy9qe0XykBgfA</recordid><startdate>198402</startdate><enddate>198402</enddate><creator>Surber, Colleen F</creator><general>American Psychological Association</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>GHEHK</scope><scope>IZSXY</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>198402</creationdate><title>Inferences of ability and effort: Evidence for two different processes</title><author>Surber, Colleen F</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a273t-690fd7043644edbb2164b648df69884fcb4c1cc537c6aac670a641daef6c79e33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1984</creationdate><topic>Ability</topic><topic>Attribution</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cognition. Intelligence</topic><topic>Energy Expenditure</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Inference</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychophysiology</topic><topic>Reasoning. Problem solving</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Surber, Colleen F</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 08</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 30</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>APA PsycArticles®</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><jtitle>Journal of personality and social psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Surber, Colleen F</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Inferences of ability and effort: Evidence for two different processes</atitle><jtitle>Journal of personality and social psychology</jtitle><date>1984-02</date><risdate>1984</risdate><volume>46</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>249</spage><epage>268</epage><pages>249-268</pages><issn>0022-3514</issn><eissn>1939-1315</eissn><coden>JPSPB2</coden><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)</abstract><cop>Washington, DC</cop><pub>American Psychological Association</pub><doi>10.1037/0022-3514.46.2.249</doi><tpages>20</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0022-3514 |
ispartof | Journal of personality and social psychology, 1984-02, Vol.46 (2), p.249-268 |
issn | 0022-3514 1939-1315 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_614299095 |
source | EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES |
subjects | Ability Attribution Biological and medical sciences Cognition. Intelligence Energy Expenditure Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Human Inference Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry Psychology. Psychophysiology Reasoning. Problem solving |
title | Inferences of ability and effort: Evidence for two different processes |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T15%3A08%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Inferences%20of%20ability%20and%20effort:%20Evidence%20for%20two%20different%20processes&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20personality%20and%20social%20psychology&rft.au=Surber,%20Colleen%20F&rft.date=1984-02&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=249&rft.epage=268&rft.pages=249-268&rft.issn=0022-3514&rft.eissn=1939-1315&rft.coden=JPSPB2&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/0022-3514.46.2.249&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E614299095%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a273t-690fd7043644edbb2164b648df69884fcb4c1cc537c6aac670a641daef6c79e33%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=614299095&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |