NotesFAQContact Us
Search Tips
ERIC Number: ED265434
Record Type: Non-Journal
Publication Date: 1985-Aug
Pages: 16
Abstractor: N/A
Reference Count: N/A
Clinicians' Use of Explanation and Counterexplanation in a Judgment Task.
Tutin, Judith
The search for and generation of causal explanations required by the task of explaining an initial impression, appear to be sufficient to raise the subjective likelihood of the event explained and to result in the persistence of the initial impression. Generating supporting and counter arguments with respect to the event does not result in an increase in the event's subjective likelihood. To study the performance differences between experts and novices for these hypotheses, a study was conducted which replicated Tutin's experiment (1985) with undergraduate students, using 86 clinical psychologists as subjects. In the first condition, clinicians were required to explain the reasons for the hypothetical occurrence of an event in the later life of a person, after reading biographical material. In a second condition, subjects were required to explain both the occurrence and the nonoccurrence of an event. Control subjects explained an unspecified event. All subjects rated the likelihood of the occurrence of a series of events, including the events explained by some subjects. Findings indicated that, similar to the performance of undergraduate student subjects on an identical task, clinicians generating only supporting arguments exhibited a biased perception of the likelihood of the event, while clinicians providing dual explanations did not show such a bias. Clinicians, however, showed some resilience to this bias depending on the event explained. (ABB)
Publication Type: Reports - Research; Speeches/Meeting Papers
Education Level: N/A
Audience: Researchers
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A