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 nondiagnostic information results in part from rules of everyday communication,which usually grant relevance to presented information.In an experimental test, participants were presented with positive or negative information about a product.Positive diagnostic information resulted in more favorable judgments than negative diagnostic information. This impact of diagnostic information was diluted when nondiagnostic information was added. Most important, the dilution effect was not observed when the applicability of the conversation was experimentally called into question.
Ajzen, I. (1977). Intuitive theories of events and the effects of base rate information on prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 303-314.
2.
Bless, H., Strack, F., & Schwarz, N. (1993). The informative function of research procedures: Bias and the logic of conversation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 149-165.
3.
Borgida,E.,& Nisbett,R.(1977).The differential impact of abstract vs. concrete information on decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 258-271.
4.
Ginossar, Z., & Trope, Y. (1980). The effects of base rates and individuating information on judgments about another person. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 228-242.
5.
Grice,P.(1975).Logic of conversation.In P.Cole & J.L.Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
6.
Higgins, E. T. (1981). The ‘communication game’: Implications for social cognition and persuasion. In E. T. Higgins, M. Zanna, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 1, pp. 343-392). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
Igou, E. R., & Bless, H. (2003). Inferring the importance of arguments: Order effects and conversational rules. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 91-99.
8.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430-454.
9.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237-251.
10.
Krosnick, J., Li, F., & Lehman, D.R. (1990).Conversational conventions, order of information acquisition, and the effect of base rates and the individuating information on social judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1140-1152.
11.
Kruglanski, A. W., Webster, D. M., & Klem, A. (1993). Motivated resistance and openness to persuasion in the presence or absence of prior information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 861-876.
12.
Nisbett, R. E., Zukier, H., & Lemley, R. E. (1981). The dilution effect:Nondiagnostic information weakens the impact of diagnostic information. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 248-277.
13.
Peters, E., & Rothbart, M. (2000). Typicality can create, eliminate, and reverse the dilution effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 177-187.
14.
Schwarz, N. (1994). Judgments in a social context: Biases, shortcomings, and the logic of conversation. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 26, pp. 123-162). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
15.
Schwarz, N. (1996). Cognition and communication:Judgmental biases,research methods, and the logic of conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
Schwarz, N., Strack, F., Hilton, D., & Naderer, G. (1991). Judgmental biases and the logic of conversation:The contextual relevance of irrelevant information. Social Cognition, 9, 67-84.
17.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance:Communication and cognition (2nd ed.) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18.
Strack,F. (1994).Response processes in social judgment.In R.S.Wyer & T.K.Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 287-321). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 74-83.
20.
Tetlock, P. E., & Boettger, R. (1989). Accountability: A social magnifier of the dilution effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 388-398.
21.
Tetlock, P. E., Lerner, J. S., & Boettger, R. (1996). The dilution effect: Judgmental bias, conversational convention, or a bit of both?European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 915-934.
22.
Wright, E. F., & Wells, G. L. (1988). Is the attitude attribution paradigm suitable for investigating the dispositional bias?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 183-190.
23.
Zukier, H.(1982).The dilution effect:The role of the correlation and the dispersion of predictor variables in the use of nondiagnostic information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 1163-1174.
24.
Zukier, H., & Jennings, D. (1983-1984). Nondiagnosticity and typicality effects in prediction. Social Cognition, 2, 187-198.
