University of North Florida UNF Digital Commons

All Volumes (2001-2008) The sprO ey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry

2002 The vA ailability in Judgments of Research Findings: Manipulations of Subjective Experience Michele A. Shams University of North Florida

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unf.edu/ojii_volumes Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons

Suggested Citation Shams, Michele A., "The vA ailability Heuristic in Judgments of Research Findings: Manipulations of Subjective Experience" (2002). All Volumes (2001-2008). 112. http://digitalcommons.unf.edu/ojii_volumes/112

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the The sprO ey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry at UNF Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Volumes (2001-2008) by an authorized administrator of UNF Digital Commons. For more information, please contact Digital Projects. © 2002 All Rights Reserved The Availability Heuristic in Judgments 1958). Scientists also develop and test of Research Findings: Manipulations of theories about human behavior. Scientists SUbjective Experience and lay people, however, may think differently about the importance of research Michele A. Shams outcomes. Scientists think that if a finding is obvious, then it is not important to Faculty Sponsor: Dr. Dan Richard conduct further research on that topic. Studies have shown that when lay people think a finding is obvious, they also think Abstract that it is important (Richard, Bond, and Stokes-Zoota, 2001). Scientists conduct Previous studies have demonstrated research to gain knowledge that could that what is easy to call to mind will eventually be beneficial to the general influence judgments. The impact of a public (Aronson, Ellsworth, Carlsmith, & person's subjective experience was tested Gonzales, 1990). In order for scientific for its influence on judgments of social information to be beneficial, scientists must psychological research findings. Eighty­ disseminate the information to the public in three college students generated a way that people can understand. Scientists examples of 40 research findings. must understand lay knowledge if they are Students subsequently judged the ease to communicate important information to with which the examples came to mind the public and if this information is to be and the probability of experiencing received. The current study was designed to similar examples. Students then better understand how lay people interpret evaluated the obviousness and and process scientific information. importance of and their interest in the Scientists use a defined method. They research outcomes. Students also think critically, formulate hypotheses, and provided demographic information and test theories. Psychologists believe that lay indicated their previous knowledge in people think much like scientists (Heider, . In the current study, the ease 1958). People interpret and then assimilate with which examples of research findings new information into their existing mental could be recalled influenced student's systems through a form of hypothesis obviousness but not importance testing. The lay person's hypothesis testing judgments. Other studies found that is similar to a scientist's because they both obviousness and importance judgments rule out alternative possibilities. The lay of research findings are positively person's hypothesis testing, however, is not related. The relationship between these as comprehensive as a scientist's process judgments was not replicated in the (Fiske & Taylor, 1982). current study. Results are discussed in Other studies reveal that scientists and terms of the availability heuristic and lay people may differ in how they interpret other cognitive strategies involved in lay the results of scientific hypothesis testing. judgments of research. Scientists feel that an obvious finding is not interesting and not important, hence not Introduction worthy of research. Scientists are afraid of wasting precious resources investigating People acquire and process knowledge topics that are already known. Research about their social world in different ways. findings that do not appear obvious arouse One way people gain knowledge is through curiosity and are investigated further past experience. People often use their past (Aronson et aI., 1990). Lay people, experiences with others, for example, to however, may respond differently to develop and test lay theories (Heider, research they consider surprising. Richard

114 Osprey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry et aL (2001) investigated the differences in Researchers have investigated inaccuracies lay peoples' perceptions of social lay people have when evaluating research. psychological results. Students read 398 In Richard et aL's (2001) study, people findings gathered from published social accurately distinguished between true psychological research reviews. The findings and foil findings. The research researchers asked college students to make findings lay people find obvious, therefore, a judgment about each research finding. are the findings they can predict Some students indicated whether each Wong (1995) also evaluated lay finding was obvious or not obvious, some judgments of research findings. In her indicated whether each finding was study, Wong presented students with 12 interesting or not interesting, and others teaching-related research findings and indicated whether each finding was asked the students to rate the obviousness important or not important. The research of each statement. People rated summaries findings most college students judged as that stated the opposite of actual research obvious were the findings other students outcomes as more obvious than the original judged as important. Although scientists outcomes themselves. In addition, consider obvious research as unimportant, providing a rationale for a finding, whether lay people believe the most obvious it was an actual finding or an opposite research findings are the most important. finding, increased the degree to which In an effort to see if lay people and people rated the research summary as scientists differ drastically in how they obvious. Feelings of obviousness tended to evaluate research, Richard et aL (2001) a person's judgments and were not a asked students to read each research finding good measure of accuracy when students and judge whether they think the finding is judged research results. Richard et aL important enough for scientists to conduct (2001) found that students can distinguish further research on that topic. If students true findings from foil findings and that evaluate research like social scientists, then true findings rated as obvious also were findings considered obvious would be accurately distinguished from foils. judged as least important for scientists to Evidence demonstrates that lay people do pursue further. The opposite occurred. have a sense of true psychological research Students indicated that it was more findings and that what is important to lay important to conduct additional research on people tends to be what is obvious. obvious findings and less important to Research has demonstrated that lay pursue non-obvious fmdings. Richard et people do think differently than scientists aL's (2001) study demonstrated that what regarding judgments of research findings. the lay person considers important is not The way lay people make judgments of necessarily consistent with what a scientist research and their subjective experiences typically would consider important. when making these judgments can be Perhaps what a lay person believes is important in understanding differences obvious is not what a scientist considers between scientists and non-scientists. obvious. Scientists consider obvious what Making a judgment about research involves is already known (Aronson et aI., 1990). a process rather than a single act. Strack Sometimes what lay people consider an (1992) introduced a model that outlines this obvious research finding may not always be judgment process. When making any a true finding. People may believe, for judgment, a person goes through two example, that when it comes to romantic phases: an exposure phase and a judgment relationships, "opposites attract," but social phase. In the exposure phase, a person is psychological research has suggested that presented with a stimulus. Concurrently, people become romantically involved with the person evaluates information that is people who are similar (Feingold, 1988). given about the stimulus, his or her own

Osprey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry 115 past experiences relating to the stimulus, availability heuristic is responsible for the and the process information (e.g. how easy because previous knowledge or difficult it is for the person to think of about a stimulus is readily available in a experiences) relating to the stimulus. The person's mind and can be retrieved to make exposure phase is completed before a decision. continuing to the judgment phase. In the Slovic and Fischhoff (1977) evaluated judgment phase, the person evaluates how how lay people evaluate research and what the information obtained in the exposure factors influence the evaluation process. phase compares to previous knowledge The researchers assigned participants to relating to the stimulus. The person then either a hindsight group or a foresight checks and corrects the information for group. Both groups reviewed four different perceived . Finally, a judgment is research scenarios. The investigator told the made. Judgments are greatly affected by foresight group about two possible how past experiences and information from outcomes that could occur and asked them the process of making the judgment are to predict the probability of each outcome, integrated (see Figure 1). When making a explain why it might occur, and estimate judgment, people use information from past the likelihood of that outcome happening experiences and from what is available in again if the study were replicated. The their minds at the time of judgment. investigator told the hindsight group only about one of the two outcomes, asked them The Availability Heuristic to explain why it had occurred, and had the The availability heuristic, a common students evaluate the probability that the cognitive strategy in human decision­ research outcome would be replicated. The making, provides an example of how the participants given one outcome estimated a process of making a judgment influences higher probability for the results being the evaluation of relevant events. People's replicated than did the participants who judgments of probability and frequency of were given two outcomes to consider. events are based on the ease with which In a second experiment, Slovic and examples of those events come to mind Fishhoff (1977) tested whether hindsight (Tversky and Kahneman, 1973). Tversky participants responded like foresight and Kahneman demonstrated how ease of participants if forced to consider two affects probability judgments using alternative outcomes for a research lists of famous male and female names. experiment instead of just one. The Participants reviewed a list of an equal researchers had students consider number of female and male names. Some alternative outcomes to an already known lists contained famous male names and research result. Students believed that some contained famous female names. The replicating the research outcomes was less participants then made estimates of the probable when they considered two frequency of male and female names. possible outcomes as opposed to just one Famous names were more likely recalled outcome. Hindsight participants responded and produced higher frequency estimates. similar to foresight participants who have Judgments of frequency were affected by no prior knowledge of a research outcome. what was salient in the mind of the person The hindsight bias was reduced when making the judgment. students were asked to consider alternative Information that is salient in one's research outcomes. mind can bias one's judgments. The Davies (1987) conducted three hindsight bias occurs when people have experiments to demonstrate that the previous outcome knowledge of a certain hindsight bias could be eliminated. In the event and base their decisions on that first experiment, Davies presented students knowledge (Slovic and Fischoff, 1977). An with four scenarios based on psychological

116 Osprey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry studies. He asked participants to write Klumpp, and Rittenauer-Schatka, 1991). notes about the studies and evaluate the Schwarz et al. manipulated subjective ease scenarios. The students returned two weeks by asking students to generate either 6 or later and received one of four conditions. 12 examples of times in their recent past In the first condition, the investigator when they were assertive (or unassertive). informed students of the outcomes of the Generating 6 examples was considered an scenarios, showed students their original easy task whereas generating 12 examples notes, and then asked them to estimate the was considered a difficult task. The likelihood of the outcomes as if they had researchers assumed that if students made never known the outcome. In the second judgments based solely on the content of condition, the investigator gave the same their recollections, the more assertive instructions except that the students did not examples they generated, the higher their review their original notes. Experimenters self-ratings of assertiveness. If students then instructed the students to try and considered the ease of recalling these remember how they originally judged the assertive behaviors, then the difficult task outcomes prior to the outcome knowledge ofrecalling 12 assertive examples would they received. In the third condition, lower their self-ratings of assertiveness, and students did not receive the outcomes, but the easy task of recalling 6 examples would they did review their original notes. In the raise their self-ratings of assertiveness. forth condition, students did not receive the Results showed that the more difficult it outcome and did not review their previous was to think of assertive examples, the notes. All students were asked to make a lower students' self-assessments of probability judgment of the outcome while assertiveness, and the more difficult it was recalling what they had originally thought to think of unassertive examples, the higher about the outcomes. their self-assessments of assertiveness. Davies (1987) found that there was a Experienced ease of recalling instances of hindsight bias. Students who reviewed the assertive or unassertive behaviors had a outcomes of the scenarios judged them as larger effect on self-assessments than did more probable than did students who did the number of instances recalled. People not review the outcomes. Davies make judgments not only based on the demonstrated that helping people remember content of the information they are judging what they had originally thought prior to but also based on the ease with which the discovering the true research outcome content comes to mind. could eliminate the hindsight bias. Lay In other studies, memory accessibility judgments of research, therefore, are effectively altered example recall influenced by the information available in (MacLeod & Campbell, 1992). The memory and the experiences of recalling researchers used a mood induction that information. procedure to manipulate ease of memory accessibility. Participants were placed in Subjective Experience either a negative mood or a positive mood Judgments are influenced by the using a mood induction procedure. content of information in memory and by Experimenters presented participants with the process by which the content is either a pleasant or an unpleasant event and accessed. The experience of how easy or asked them to recall a personal memory difficult information is called to mind can that would apply to that event. Participants be just as important as the information then rated the future probability of recalled. Self-assessments, for example, experiencing the event in the future. are influenced by the ease with which one The researchers hypothesized that can recall examples related to that recall times and probability judgments assessment (Schwarz, Strack, Bless, would be inversely related. The longer it

Osprey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry 117 takes a person to think of examples, the finding, participants rated how easy it was less salient it is in memory; therefore, the to generate examples and how probable it probability of the event occurring in the was that similar examples would occur in future would seem unlikely. If the mood the near future. The students also indicated induction was successful, then recall times whether each finding was obvious or not for pleasant events would be shorter for obvious, important or not important, and participants in a positive mood than interesting or not interesting. After making for those in a negative mood, and recall these judgments for each finding, times for unpleasant events would be participants completed a one-page shorter for people in a negative mood than questionnaire that assessed their level of for those in a positive mood (MacLeod & psychological knowledge. Campbell, 1992). The current study attempted to The researchers found that there is a manipulate subjective experience by significant inverse relationship between the including psychological findings previously speed with which past memories of categorized as being easy and difficult to specified events can be recalled and the think of examples and by utilizing an perceived probability of experiencing that example generation manipulation. Students event in the future (MacLeod & Campbell generated either one or five examples of 1992). Basically, those who recalled research findings and then made judgments passed memories quicker rated them as of obviousness, importance, and more probable to occur in the near future. interestingness. The more difficult it is for By using a mood induction process, the students to think of examples of a research researchers were successful in modifying finding, the less obvious, important and the ease with which positive and negative interesting students will judge that finding. memories were recalled. This ease of recall The findings for which more examples are subsequently influenced probability requested will be judged as less obvious judgments. Students in a negative mood and important than findings for which recalled unpleasant events faster and fewer examples are requested. indicated that unpleasant events have a The current study attempted to replicate higher probability of occurring than earlier results on the availability heuristic pleasant events. The same pattern occurred and to extend the research to lay judgments for people in a positive mood recalling of research findings in the field of social pleasant events. MacLeod and Campbell psychology. If people know the outcome of demonstrated that subjective experience can psychological research, then they may call be manipulated and that differences in to mind easily accessible information to subjective experience influence judgments. judge the probability of future occurrences. The present study evaluated the use of Hypothesis accessible information in memory to make Richard et al. (2001) found that lay obviousness, importance, and interest people think obvious research results are judgments about research outcomes. important. One possible explanation for Findings for which examples are easily these findings is that lay people use the ease recalled will be judged as more obvious and with which examples are called to mind important than findings for which examples when making judgments of obviousness and are difficult to recall. importance. This hypothesis was investigated in the current study. Groups of students read brief, type-written social psychological research findings. Students generated either one example or five examples for research findings. For each

118 Osprey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry Method generate examples (M = 4.58, SD = .97) and the 20 findings students rated most Participants easy to think of examples (M = 6.59, SD = Participants were undergraduate .44). As a validity test on the sample of students currently enrolled in Introductory findings, those findings categorized as easy to Psychology courses at a southern received higher ease of example generation university. One hundred thirteen students ratings than findings categorized as participated and received credit toward difficult, t(38) = 8.43, p < .0005. Findings their grade (30 students in the pretest and categorized as easy represent research 83 in the primary study). An experimenter outcomes for which students have examples visited each Introductory Psychology class readily available in memory. Findings and briefly explained the study. Students categorized as difficult represent research were given the opportunity to sign up outcomes for which students have few immediately or later on a psychology examples readily available in memory. department bulletin board. All students Researchers also selected four findings as were treated in accordance with APA neutral findings with a mean ease rating of ethical guidelines. M = 5.16 (SD = .54).

Materials Primary Experiment The findings presented to students Students read two neutral findings at represent a sample from Richard et al.'s the beginning of each sequence to become (2001) study. By examining their data, the familiar with the task of generating present research team observed the time examples. Each set of test materials students took to read and think of examples consisted of an equal number of easy for each finding. Controlling for reading findings (e.g. "When people drink alcohol, times, the 25 findings with the shortest they become aggressive") and difficult response times were categorized as easy, findings (e.g. "Sometimes a message has and the 25 findings with the longest more persuasive impact after a delay"). response times were categorized as Students viewed and judged an equal difficult. These easy and difficult findings number of findings categorized as easy and were selected for the current study. as difficult. This served as a repeated­ measures factor in the current study. Pretest Appendix A lists the findings categorized as Experimenters recruited students from easy and difficult. Introductory Psychology courses and The number of examples the conducted a pretest to establish whether the participants generated served as an findings selected would be judged as easy experimental manipulation. Researchers or difficult. Thirty students completed a achieved the manipulation through the packet of 14 findings. The students made presentation of different survey forms. judgments indicating the ease with which Half of the participants generated one examples came to mind on an eight-point example per research finding and the other Likert Scale anchored at one, Not at all half generated five examples per research Easy, and eight, Very Easy. The pretest finding. In the one-example condition, participants rated a total of 50 findings. subjects viewed 22 findings, and in the The ease ratings averaged across five-example condition subjects viewed 12 participants for each finding served as a findings. In each condition, students spent measure of example generation ease. approximately one hour completing the Students' ratings of ease were accumulated judgment task. for each finding. Researchers selected the 20 findings students rated most difficult to

Osprey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry 119 In order to control for presentation without any penalty. The experimenter read order, participants received the statements the following instructions out loud: in one of two sequences. In the first "The purpose of this study is to sequence, the findings occurred in a fixed understand students' judgments of random order. The second sequence was research findings. You will be given a the opposite of the first. In both sequences, number of findings. In the space students read the two neutral findings first provided, generate brief examples that to familiarize them with the task. The apply to that finding. Any example is students then viewed the test findings. The acceptable. If you feel that after some materials did not distinguish between time you are struggling to generate an practice findings and test findings for the example, complete the remaining students. Figure 2 presents a diagram of questions on the page and go on to the the various presentation orders across next finding. After thinking of groups of participants. examples, you will be asked additional After reviewing each finding, students questions about the finding." rated the ease and probability of each finding based on an eight-point scale Participants then received the replicated from the pretest. For each materials containing the research findings. finding, students judged whether the In the one-example condition, students finding was obvious or not obvious, read each finding and listed one example important or not important, and interesting per finding. Immediately after generating or not interesting. Half of the participants an example, students evaluated how easy it received the judgments with the affirmative was to think of the example and how response stated first (e.g. Obvious or Not probable it was that the finding could Obvious). The remaining half received the occur in the near future. Following the judgment choices in the opposite order (e.g. ease and probability questions, students Not Obvious or Obvious). made obvious, important, and interesting Once students completed the first set judgments. The procedure was identical of materials, they completed an Experience for the five-example group with the with Psychology questionnaire. Students exception that students listed five examples indicated their age, sex (either male or for each finding rather than one. In both female), and classification (either the one-example condition and the five­ freshmen, sophomore, junior, or senior). example condition, students generated The questionnaire assessed the students' examples for findings previously rated as experience with psychology courses in either easy or difficult. After the high school and college by asking the participants finished making judgments, students to write the number of courses they completed the Experience with they completed at each institution and to Psychology questionnaire. The list the topics they studied. experimenter debriefed the participants.

Procedure Results Participants for each session were directed to a room with two rows of six Two independent variables were used chairs. The participants read and signed the for the current study. The first independent informed consent form and received variable was the number of examples instructions. The experimenter explained requested (either one or five). The second that the study would take at least one hour independent variable was the expected ease and that if at any time a participant decided of examples recalled (easy or difficult, as not to continue, he or she could do so determined by the pretest). Students read both easy and difficult findings; therefore,

120 Osprey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry this variable served as a within-subjects Judgments of Research Findings factor. The dependent variable was the The percentage of affirmative (e.g. proportion of students judging the findings obvious, important, etc.) judgments made as obvious and important. The data were by a participant in each of the example evaluated in two forms: cross-participant generation ease categories was observed. analyses and cross-finding analyses. In Consistent with the hypothesis, students some cases, the test of interest involved were more likely to judge a finding in the averaging students' responses across easy category as obvious (M = 85%) than findings. Not all research findings are they were to judge as obvious findings in identical; therefore, some analyses involved the difficult category (M = 50%), F(I,81) = averaging students' responses for a 138.38, P < .0005. According to the particular finding. availability heuristic and research on the hindsight bias, findings for which examples Manipulation Check come to mind easily would be judged as Analysis of each student's responses more obvious than findings for which averaged across categories of easy and examples do not. The manipulation of difficult findings revealed that students in subjective ease, however, did not have the fact rated the example generation task same effect. Students who generated one easier for findings previously categorized example (a subjectively easy task) were not as easy (M = 5.95) than for findings more likely to judged findings as obvious categorized as difficult (M = 4.54), F(l,81) than were students who generated five = 94.25, p < .0005. Students asked to examples (a subjectively difficult task), generate one example found that task easier F < 1. See Figure 5. (M = 6.11) than students asked to generate Analysis of importance judgments five examples (M = 4.62), F(1,81) = 39.25, revealed that students judged findings p < .0005. No interaction effects emerged categorized as easy and those categorized in judgments of example generation ease as difficult as equally important, F(1 ,81) = (F < 1). See Figure 3. .672, p = .415. In addition, students did not judge findings as more important in either Replication of the Availability Heuristic the one-example condition or the five­ Consistent with the availability example condition. No interaction emerged heuristic, students rated findings in the easy for importance judgments (F < 1). category as more probable (M = 6.28) than findings in the difficult category (M = 4.6), Cross-Findings Judgments F(1,81) = 163.47,p < .0005. Students To evaluate students' judgments of asked to generate one example, however, research outcomes, the proportion of found the findings only slightly more students indicating that a finding was probable to occur in the future (M = 5.7) obvious in one presentation order was than students asked to generate five compared to the proportion of students findings (M = 5.2) F(1,81) = 3.88, p = .052. judging the same finding as obvious in the No interaction effects were found in opposite presentation order. Results probability judgments (F < 1). The indicate that students agreed with what was manipulation of the number of examples obvious, important and interesting, generated clearly affected students' Spearman Brown Split-Half Reliability r = experience with subjective ease; however, it .88, .71, .70, respectively. did not clearly affect probability ratings Richard et al. (2001) found a positive (See Figure 4). relationship between students' judgments of obviousness and importance of research findings. The previously observed

Osprey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry 121 relationship was not replicated in the systematic strategy. current study. The correlations between the Schwarz (1998) examined previous proportion of students (across all studies in which people engaged in conditions) judging a finding as obvious, systematic processing when highly invested important and interesting are presented in (or motivated) in a task and engaged in Table 1. Unlike previous research, no heuristic processing in tasks that were less relationship was observed between the relevant to the person. Rothman and proportion of students who judged the Schwarz (1998) found that when people are finding as obvious and the proportion of motivated, they base their judgments on the students who judged the finding as content of information and engage in important, r(38) = .09, p = .572. As might systematic processing to assess risk. The be expected from research on the more relevant information that people had availability heuristic, the proportion of to recall about their health, the higher they students who judged a finding as obvious assessed their health risk. People who were was positively correlated with the average not highly motivated in a task engaged in example generation ease rating for the heuristic processing and based their risk finding and the probability that similar assessments on the ease with which they examples would occur in the future, could recall examples. The less relevant rs(38) = .89, .76, respectively, both information people had to recall about their ps < .0005. health, the higher their health-risk assessment. Discussion When using a heuristic processing strategy, a person draws information from Consistent with the hypothesis, his or her subjective experience. People are students rated findings as more obvious if more inclined to base their judgment on the the findings were easily called to mind. content of the information when using The results of the current study are systematic processing. In the current study, consistent with Slovic and Fischoff's people tended to judge findings as easier to (1977) demonstration of the hindsight bias think of examples if they only had to and extend Tversky and Kahneman's generate one example. If students were (1973) research of the availability heuristic. using a heuristic processing strategy to What is easily accessed in memory judge research outcomes, then the ease with influenced a student's judgment of research which examples came to mind would have outcomes. The results indicate that influenced their obvious and important requiring students to generate several judgments. If a systematic process was examples influenced the subjective used, then students who generated five experience of ease. The changes in examples would have rated the findings as subjective experience, however, only more obvious. Our results show that slightly influenced probability judgments judgments of obviousness were influenced and did not influence obvious judgments. by the subjective ease of example A person's ease ratings of a finding were, generation but not necessarily by the however, influenced by the number of number of examples generated for a examples they generated. Students who finding. Students who generated five generated only one example for a finding findings, in fact, were less likely to judge evaluated the generation of examples for a the finding as obvious, even though they finding as easier than did students who generated more examples of the finding. generated five examples. The influence of This result suggests that heuristic example generation ease on obvious processing rather than systematic judgments suggests a heuristic strategy for processing was being used to judge the making obvious judgments rather than a obviousness of research. There was no

122 Osprey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry evidence to suggest that experienced ease students in the TCU sample to engage in affected important or interesting judgments. heuristic processing to quickly reach an Richard et al. (200 1) had found that answer, any answer. Students at UNF, findings students judged as obvious were alternatively, may have used more also findings judged as important. The systematic processing in an effort to avoid positive relationship between obviousness invalidity. It would be beneficial to not and importance was not replicated in the only examine the differences between lay current study. Perhaps the populations used people and scientists, but to also observe were different. Richard et al. tested the differences among lay people in students at Texas Christian University different regions of the country. (TCU), a private, historically Christian, The current study has reinforced the mid-sized university, and the current study idea that lay people utilize information that tested students at the University of North is easily accessible in memory to make Florida (UNF), a mid-sized public judgments. The idea that people use their university. The people in these two regions subjective experiences as process of the country could respond to research information to make judgments received outcomes differently. People vary in their support in the current study as well. When motivations and their ability to consider people can easily think of examples for a alternative explanations when making a given research finding, they will consider judgment (Kruglanski & Freund, 1983). the finding obvious. When scientists People's motivation to consider other disseminate new information to the public alternatives when forming a judgment is they should consider using subjective influenced by three separate needs: the experience to their advantage. Perhaps need for structure, the fear of invalidity, and giving examples of the research findings the need for specific closure. The need for that people can quickly call to mind will structure motivates people to search for an reinforce how the new information is answer to clarify . This need is pertinent to their lives. amplified when a person is forced to reach The results of this study will help a clearly defined conclusion. The fear of establish a better understanding of the invalidity motivates people to be correct so factors that influence judgments of research as not to receive negative social attention outcomes. The response scientists receive for being invalid. People who experience from the lay public about the obviousness high fear of invalidity consider multiple and importance of the research can be alternatives and evaluate various influenced by how the information is explanations when attempting to solve presented and by the information about the problems. The need for specific finding people already have in memory. conclusions motivates people to have Many social psychological research clearly defined, plausible explanations for outcomes may be important to society. the events in their life. When scientists discover an important According to Kruglaski (1983), some finding, they will want to effectively people have a general tendency to seek out communicate the new information to the new information as opposed to just seeking lay public. out one answer. Only seeking one answer would suggest that a person has a high need for cognitive closure. Students at the UNF felt that obvious research findings were not necessarily important. This reasoning is more consistent with that of a scientist's thought process. Having a high need for cognitive closure may have motivated

Osprey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry 123 References Schwarz, N. (1998). Accessible content and accessibility experiences: The Aronson, E., Ellsworth, P. c., interplay of declarative and experiential Carlsmith, J. M., & Gonzales, M. (1990). information in judgment. Personality and Methods of Research in Social PsychologyReview, 2,87-99. (2nd Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Davies, M.F. (1987). Reduction of Klump, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., Simons, hindsight bias by restoration of foresight A (1991). Ease of retrieval as perspective: Effectiveness of foresight­ information: Another look at the encoding and hindsight-retrieval strategies. availability heuristic. J oumal of Organizational Behavior and Human Personality and Social Psychology, 61, Decisions Processes, 40, 50-68. 195-202.

Feingold, A (1988). Matching for Slovic, P., & Fischhoff, B. (1977). On attractiveness. Psychological Bulletin, 104, the psychology of experimental surprises. 226-235. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1982). 544-541. Social cognition. Reading, MA: Addison­ Wesley. Strack, F. (1992). The different routes to social judgments: Experimental versus Kruglanski, A w., & Freund, T. informational strategies. In L.L. Martin (1983). The freezing and unfreezing of lay­ & A Tesser (Eds.), The Social Judgments inferences: Effects on impressional (pp. 249-275). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical Erlbaum. anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 19, 448-468. Tversky, A, & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging MacLeod, C. & Campbell, L. (1992). frequency and probability. Cognitive Memory Accessibility and Probability Psychology, 5,207-232. Judgments: An experimental evaluation of the availability heuristic. Journal of Wong, L.Y (1995). Research on Personality and Social Psychology, 63, teaching: Process-product research findings 890-902. and the feeling of obviousness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 504-511. Richard, F.D., Bond, C.F. Jr., & Stokes-Zoota, J.J. (2001). "That's completely obvious .... and important": Lay judgments of social psychological findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27,497-505.

Rothman, AJ., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Constructing perceptions of vulnerability: Personal relevance and the use of experiential information in health judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1053-1064.

124 Osprey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry Appendix A: Findings Presented Previously Categorized as Easy and Difficult

Easy Statements Mean When people drink alcohol, they engage in extreme behaviors. 7.57 The members of a group influence one another. 7.25 Women are more likely than men to perform care-taking tasks for others. 7.13 Women are more skilled at expressing emotion than men. 7.00 Leaders are most effective if they have charisma. 6.88 People are likely to recycle if they know about recycling. 6.86 When people drink alcohol, they become aggressive. 6.86 Men are more likely than women to favor premarital sex. 6.86 Dormitory crowding makes residents dissatisfied. 6.57 People are unlikely to express their opinions without others' support. 6.57 Taking a pretest improves a person's score on a posttest. 6.57 People work less when in a group than when working alone. 6.43 Students who have high self-esteem achieve a lot. 6.43 Women are more likely than men to disclose personal information to others. 6.29 Smiling increases happiness. 6.29 Friends interact more positively with one another than non-friends. 6.29 People remember negative events when they are depressed. 6.13 People attribute their successes to effort. 6.00 Boys are more competitive than girls. 6.00 People are most likely to respond to surveys if they are offered monetary incentives. 6.00

Difficult Statements Mean Jurors are harsh if the victim is an attractive Anglo-American female. 1.60 Persuasive messages that provoke fear are able to induce attitude change. 3.57 Negotiators are likely to compromise if they are experienced. 3.83 Girls who are reared in father-absent homes are non-feminine. 3.88

Experimenters find the research results they expect to find. 4.00 Sometimes a message has more persuasive impact after a delay. 4.17 A woman is likely to be held responsible for being raped if she was previously acquainted with her attacker. 4.43 Teachers expect more from attractive than unattractive students. 4.43 People with Type A personalities suffer chronic emotional distress. 4.50 Empathetic people do not act negatively, antisocially, or abusively. 4.71 Children who are helpful can infer others' motives and thoughts. 4.71 Men attribute their performance to effort more than women. 4.75 Leaders are most effective if they avoid making unnecessary changes. 4.83 Nonverbal behavior quickly conveys accurate information about the actor. 5.00 In the presence of others, people become physiologically aroused. 5.25 Highly masculine men and highly feminine women have traditional attitudes toward women. 5.29 A confident eyewitness gives accurate eyewitness testimony. 5.33 There is consistency between people's attitudes and behavior. 5.71 The most socially active people report the highest life satisfaction. 5.86 People involved in intimate violence give undesirable self-descriptions. 5.86

Osprey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry 125 Table I

Correlations Between Proportions ofStudents Judgments ofEase, Probability, Obviousness, Importance and Interest

Judgment Ease Probability Obvious Important Interesting

Ease .782* .890* .104 .071

Probability .759* -.154 -.211

Obvious .092 -.018

Important .643*

* p < .0005

Figure I. Strack's Model of Social Judgment

EXPERIENCE l EXPOSURE PHASE STIMULUS INFO

PROCESS INFO J

PROCESSING OBJECTS l JUDGMENT REPRESENTATIVENESS PHASE CHECK & CORRECTION

JUDGMENT J

126 Osprey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry Figure 2. Presentation Order of Test Findings Figure 3. Manipulation Check for Ease of Example Generation A.cross Different Experimental Conditions 7.0

6.5 ------.. Time One Example Condition

Order I: Random

Neutral Findings Test Findings 1-2 1-20 or

3-4 _Difficult Findings

DEasy Findings Order II: Reverse of Order I 1 example 5 examples

Neutral Findings Test Findings 2-1 20-1 or Figure 4. Replication of the Availability Heuristic 4-3 for the Probability of Future Occurrence

7.0.,------, Five Example Condition

fe.s Order III: Random : !' 6.0 :a Neutral Findings Test Findings .: 1-2 1-10 e 5.5 L or or 3-4 11-20 ::E: 5.0 Order IV: Reverse of Order III

-DIfficult Findings Neutral Findings Test Findings 2-1 10-1 DEasy Findings 1 example 5 examples or or 4-3 20-11 Number of Examples Generated

Figure 4. Replication of the Availability Heuristic for the Probability of Future Occurrence

-Difficult Findings

DEasy Findings 1 example 5 examples

Number of Examples Generated

Osprey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry 127