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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of personality and social psychology 1984-02, Vol.46 (2), p.249-268
Main Author: Surber, Colleen F
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&amp;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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; 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