The dilution effect: judgmental bias, conversational convention, or a bit of both?

  title={The dilution effect: judgmental bias, conversational convention, or a bit of both?},
  author={Philip E. Tetlock and Jennifer Susan Lerner and Richard Boettger},
  journal={European Journal of Social Psychology},
This study explored competing normative interpretations of the dilution effect: the tendency for people to underutilize diagnostic evidence in prediction tasks when that evidence is accompanied by irrelevant information. From the normative vantage point of the intuitive statistician, the dilution effect is a judgmental bias that arises from the representativeness heuristic (similarity-matching of causes and effects). From the normative prospective of the intuitive politician, however, the… 
Does the Dilution Effect Have a Conversational Basis?
The dilution effect refers to the finding that judgments are often unduly influenced by nondiagnostic information, producing regressive judgment. The hypothesis of a conversational basis of the
Contribution of conversation skills to the production of judgmental errors
An impressive body of evidence has accumulated demonstrating that many of the judgmental 'errors' or 'biases' formerly thought due to purely cognitive shortcomings actually reflect the operation of
Another Look at Reasoning Experiments: Rationality, Normative Models and Conversational Factors
In many studies, human reasoning has been depicted as “biased” or deviating from normative models in both areas of deductive and inductive reasoning. Two criteria for evaluation of reasoning studies
Violating conversational conventions disrupts cognitive processing of attitude questions
This research distinguishes conversational norms from conversational conventions and tests the notion that violation of conversational conventions in attitude questions disrupts processing and
The pervasive effects of argument length on inductive reasoning
Three experiments examined the influence of argument length on plausibility judgements, in a category-based induction task. The general results were that when arguments were logically invalid they
Separating the wheat from the chaff: does discriminating between diagnostic and nondiagnostic information eliminate the dilution effect?
It is demonstrated that the dilution effect disappeared only when participants engage in perceptual control, that is, when they actively remove nondiagnostic pieces of information before making a judgment.
Direction of comparison asymmetries in relational judgment : The role of linguistic norms
This research documented a linguistic norm account of direction of comparison asymmetry effects in relational judgments (e.g., seeing hyenas as more similar to dogs than dogs are similar to hyenas).
The Conversational Basis for the Dilution Effect
The impact of diagnostic information on judgments and in decision making is often reduced when additional, nondiagnostic information is presented. This article argues that the diluting impact of
Towards a balanced social psychology: Causes, consequences, and cures for the problem-seeking approach to social behavior and cognition
A more balanced social psychology would yield not only a more positive view of human nature, but also an improved understanding of the bases of good behavior and accurate judgment, coherent explanations of occasional lapses, and theoretically grounded suggestions for improvement.


Base Rates, Representativeness, and the Logic of Conversation: The Contextual Relevance of “Irrelevant” Information
According to the cooperative principle of conversation that governs social discourse in everyday life, listeners expect speakers to be relevant, truthful, and informative. In studies on judgmental
An Alternative Metaphor in the Study of Judgment and Choice: People as Politicians
Researchers who study judgment and choice have assumed it is useful to think of people as either intuitive psychologists or economists who strive either to understand the people around them or to
Accountability: A social check on the fundamental attribution error.
Previous attitude-attribution studies indicate that people are often quick to draw conclusions about the attitudes and personalities of others-even when plausible external or situational causes for
Conversational conventions, order of information acquisition, and the effect of base rates and individuating information on social judgments.
Numerous studies have shown that people underuse base-rate information in making social judgments and rely instead almost exclusively on individuating information. Seven studies reported here
Conversational Implicature, Conscious Representation, and the Conjunction Fallacy
This study examined judgments in four of Tversky and Kahneman's (1983) conjunction tasks, applying Gricean principles of conversational implicature and an analysis of the subjects' conscious
Intuitive Psychologist or Intuitive Lawyer? Alternative Models of the Attribution Process
The notion that humans commonly commit a "fundamental attribution error" by overattributi ng causality to persons rather than situations rests on a particular model of the attribution process. That
Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: conformity, complexity, and bolstering.
This experiment tested predictions derived from a social contingency model of judgment and choice that identifies 3 distinctive strategies that people rely on in dealing with demands for
Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task.
Preexposure-accountability subjects reported more integratively complex impressions of test-takers, made more accurate behavioral predictions, and reported more appropriate levels of confidence in their predictions than did either no-Accountability or postexposure- accountability subjects.
On the psychology of prediction
In this paper, we explore the rules that determine intuitive predictions and judgments of confidence and contrast these rules to the normative principles of statistical prediction. Two classes of