Likelihood judgment based on previously observed outcomes: the alternative-outcomes effect in a learning paradigm (original) (raw)

References

• Attneave, F. (1953). Psychological probability as a function of experienced frequency.Journal of Experimental Psychology,46, 81–86.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Betsch, T., Siebler, F., Marz, P., Hormuth, S., &Dickenberger, D. (1999). The moderating role of category salience and category focus in judgments of set size and frequency of occurrence.Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,25, 463–481.
  Article Google Scholar
• Brown, N. R. (1995). Estimation strategies and the judgment of event frequency.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 1539–1553.
  Article Google Scholar
• Brown, N. R. (1997). Context memory and the selection of frequency estimation strategies.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 898–914.
  Article Google Scholar
• Fiedler, K., &Armbruster, T. (1994). Two halfs may be more than one whole: Category-split effects on frequency illusions.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,66, 633–645.
  Article Google Scholar
• Gonzalez, M., &Frenck-Mestre, C. (1993). Determinants of numerical versus verbal probabilities.Acta Psychologica,83, 33–51.
  Article Google Scholar
• Greene, R. L. (1986). Effects of intentionality and strategy on memory for frequency.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,12, 489–495.
  Article Google Scholar
• Greene, R. L. (1989). On the relationship between categorical frequency estimation and cued recall.Memory & Cognition,17, 235–239.
  Article Google Scholar
• Hasher, L., &Zacks, R. T. (1984). Automatic processing of fundamental information: The case of frequency of occurrence.American Psychologist,39, 1372–1388.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Hintzman, D. L. (1988). Judgments of frequency and recognition memory in a multiple-trace memory model.Psychological Review,95, 528–551.
  Article Google Scholar
• Hintzman, D. L. (2001). Similarity, global matching, and judgments of frequency.Memory & Cognition,29, 547–556.
  Article Google Scholar
• Howell, W. C. (1973). Representation of frequency in memory.Psychological Bulletin,80, 44–53.
  Article Google Scholar
• Jonides, J., &Naveh-Benjamin, M. (1987). Estimating frequency of occurrence.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,13, 230–240.
  Article Google Scholar
• Maki, R. H., &Ostby, R. S. (1987). Effects of level of processing and rehearsal on frequency judgments.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,13, 151–163.
  Article Google Scholar
• Manis, M., Shedler, J., Jonides, J., &Nelson, T. E. (1993). Availability heuristic in judgments of set size and frequency of occurrence.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,65, 448–457.
  Article Google Scholar
• Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Posavac, S. S., &Stasney, R. (1997). The subjective beliefs underlying probability overestimation.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,33, 276–295.
  Article Google Scholar
• Sedlmeier, P., Hertwig, R., &Gigerenzer, G. (1998). Are judgments of the positional frequencies of letters systematically biased due to availability?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,24, 754–770.
  Article Google Scholar
• Teigen, K. H. (1974). Subjective sampling distributions and the additivity of estimates.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,15, 50–55.
  Article Google Scholar
• Teigen, K. H. (1983). Studies in subjective probability III: The unimportance of alternatives.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,24, 97–105.
  Article Google Scholar
• Teigen, K. H. (1988). When are low-probability events judged to be “probable”? Effects of outcome-set characteristics on verbal probability estimates.Acta Psychologica,67, 157–174.
  Article Google Scholar
• Teigen, K. H. (2001). When equal chances = good chances: Verbal probabilities and the equiprobability effect.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,85, 77–108.
  Article Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., &Koehler, D. J. (1994). Support theory: A nonextensional representation of subjective probability.Psychological Review,101, 547–567.
  Article Google Scholar
• van Wallendael, L. R., &Hastie, R. (1990). Tracing the footsteps of Sherlock Holmes: Cognitive representations of hypothesis testing.Memory & Cognition,18, 240–250.
  Article Google Scholar
• Windschitl, P. D. (2000). The binary additivity of subjective probability does not indicate the binary complementarity of perceived certainty.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,81, 195–225.
  Article Google Scholar
• Windschitl, P. D., &Wells, G. L. (1996). Measuring psychological uncertainty: Verbal versus numeric methods.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,2, 343–364.
  Article Google Scholar
• Windschitl, P. D., &Wells, G. L. (1998). The alternative-outcomes effect.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,75, 1411–1423.
  Article Google Scholar
• Windschitl, P. D., &Young, M. E. (2001). The influence of alternative outcomes on gut-level perceptions of certainty.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,85, 109–134.
  Article Google Scholar
• Wright, G., &Whalley, P. (1983). The supra-additivity of subjective probability. In B. P. Stigum & F. Wenstøp (Eds.),Foundations of utility and risk theory with applications (pp. 233–244). Dordrecht: Reidel.
  Google Scholar

Download references