Abstract
The relative effect of each informational dimension in an information integration task is a joint function of its weight and the range of values over which it is varied. A method is developed for separating these two factors. Weights obtained by this method were compared across variations of stimulus range. Subjects rated the performance of students on the basis of midterm exam scores and final exam scores. For some subjects, the range of scores on the final exam was twice that on the midterm and the reverse was true for other subjects. An averaging model was shown to describe the results, and weights did not differ for different stimulus ranges. This was true for each of two instructional conditions: one in which a particular weighting strategy was prescribed and one in which there was no prescribed weighting. Students who were instructed to use a 2∶1 weighting were found to assign more than twice as much weight to the final as to the midterm.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Reference Note
Norman, K. L. A solution for weights and scale values in functional measurement. Manuscript submitted for publication, 1975.
References
Anderson, N. H. Averaging versus adding as a stimulus-combination rule in impression formation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1965, 70, 394–400.
Anderson, N. H. Comments on the articles of Hedges and of Schönemann, Cafferty, and Rotten. Psychological Review, 1973, 80, 88–92.
Anderson, N. H. Information integration theory: A brief survey. In D. H. Krantz, R. C. Atkinson, R. D. Luce, & P. Suppes (Eds.),Contemporary developments in mathematical psychology. Vol. 2. San Francisco: Freeman, 1974.
Dooling, D. J., & Danks, J. H. Going beyond tests of significance: Is psychology ready? Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1975, 5, 15–17.
Levin, I. P. Learning effects in information integration: Manipulation of cue validity in an impression formation task. Memory & Cognition, 1973, 1, 235–240.
Levin, I. P. Averaging processes in ratings and choices based on numerical information. Memory & Cognition, 1974, 2, 786–790. a.
Levin, I. P. Averaging processes and intuitive statistical judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1974, 12, 83–91. b.
Levin, I. P. Information integration in numerical judgments and decision processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1975, 104, 39–53.
Levin, I. P., Norman, K. L., & Dolezal, J. M. Response scale effects and integration processes in the averaging of motor movements. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1973, 5, 1–7.
Levin, I. P., Wall, L. L., Dolezal, J. M., & Norman, K. L. Differentia] weighting of positive and negative traits in impression formation as a function of prior exposure. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973, 97, 114–115.
Norman, K. L. Dynamic processes in stimulus integration theory: The effects of feedback on the averaging of motor movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974, 102, 399–408.
Parducci, A., Thaler, L., & Anderson, N. H. Stimulus averaging and the context for judgment. Perception & Psychophysics, 1968, 3,145–150.
Schónemann, P. H., Cafferty, T., & Rotten, J. A note on additive functional measurement. Psychological Review, 1973, 80, 85–87.
Shanteau, J. Descriptive versus normative models of sequential reference judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1972, 93, 63–68.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Levin, I.P., Kim, K.J. & Corry, F.A. Invariance of the weight parameter in information integration. Memory & Cognition 4, 43–47 (1976). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213253
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213253