Wasserman E A, Dorner W W, Kao S F
Department of Psychology, University of Iowa, Iowa City 52242.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1990 May;16(3):509-21. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.16.3.509.
College students considered the possible effect of an experimental drug on a skin rash. The information came from a 2 x 2 contingency table involving receipt or nonreceipt of the drug and improvement or nonimprovement of the rash: Cell A = receipt-improvement; Cell B = receipt-nonimprovement; Cell C = nonreceipt-improvement; Cell D = nonreceipt-nonimprovement. Without numerical information. Ss judged cells to be ordered A greater than B greater than C greater than D. The same order held when the contribution of each cell was derived from the contingency judgments of other subjects given numerical information. No such consistency was seen when one group of Ss made both judgments: whether individual Ss equally or unequally assessed the importance of the four cells, their contingency estimates showed cell use to be ordered A greater than B greater than C greater than D. These findings may result from strong biases that Ss harbor in processing contingency information.
大学生们考虑了一种实验药物对皮疹的可能影响。这些信息来自一个2×2列联表，涉及是否接受药物治疗以及皮疹是否改善：单元格A = 接受药物治疗且皮疹改善；单元格B = 接受药物治疗但皮疹未改善；单元格C = 未接受药物治疗但皮疹改善；单元格D = 未接受药物治疗且皮疹未改善。在没有数值信息的情况下，受试者判断单元格的顺序为A大于B大于C大于D。当每个单元格的贡献来自于给了数值信息的其他受试者的列联判断时，同样的顺序依然成立。当一组受试者进行这两种判断时，却没有看到这种一致性：无论个体受试者是否平等地评估这四个单元格的重要性，他们的列联估计都显示单元格的使用顺序为A大于B大于C大于D。这些发现可能源于受试者在处理列联信息时所怀有的强烈偏见。
