This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Baumeister, R. F. Articles by Newman, L. S. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Baumeister, R. F. Articles by Newman, L. S. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Self-Regulation of Cognitive Inference and Decision Processes

Case Western Reserve University

Leonard S. Newman

Case Western Reserve University

Mechanisms for controlling inference processes are analyzed according to the models of intuitive scientist (who desires optimal, accurate conclusions) and intuitive lawyer (who desires predetermined, particular conclusions), using a step model of the inference process. The first step, gathering evidence, can be regulated by moving the termination point and by looking in particular places for evidence. The second step, drawing immediate implications from bits of evidence, is presumably automatic and hence relatively immune to regulation. The third step, assessing implications, can override or discredit implications of specific pieces of evidence, and it can be used to regulate inference through combating bias or through attacking and discrediting unwanted implications. The final step, involving integration of assorted evidence and implications, can be regulated by manipulating decision rules and criteria.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 20, No. 1, 3-19 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/0146167294201001


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. E. Rabe-Hemp POLICEwomen or PoliceWOMEN?: Doing Gender and Police Work Feminist Criminology, April 1, 2009; 4(2): 114 - 129. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. R. Maio and G. Thomas The Epistemic-Teleologic Model of Deliberate Self-Persuasion Personality and Social Psychology Review, February 1, 2007; 11(1): 46 - 67. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. Schively Understanding the NIMBY and LULU Phenomena: Reassessing Our Knowledge Base and Informing Future Research Journal of Planning Literature, February 1, 2007; 21(3): 255 - 266. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. L. Sommer, I. A. Horowitz, and M. J. Bourgeois When Juries Fail to Comply with the Law: Biased Evidence Processing in Individual and Group Decision Making Pers Soc Psychol Bull, March 1, 2001; 27(3): 309 - 320. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. LUBELL Cognitive Conflict and Consensus Building in the National Estuary Program American Behavioral Scientist, December 1, 2000; 44(4): 629 - 648. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. K. Gordon and A. G. Miller Perspective Differences in the Construal of Lies: Is Deception in the Eye of the Beholder? Pers Soc Psychol Bull, January 1, 2000; 26(1): 46 - 55. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Schuutz It was your Fault! Self-Serving Biases in Autobiographical Accounts of Conflicts in Married Couples Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, April 1, 1999; 16(2): 193 - 208. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. N. Moreno and G. V. Bodenhausen Resisting Stereotype Change: The Role of Motivation and Attentional Capacity in Defending Social Beliefs Group Processes Intergroup Relations, January 1, 1999; 2(1): 5 - 16. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Krueger Enhancement Bias in Descriptions of Self and Others Pers Soc Psychol Bull, May 1, 1998; 24(5): 505 - 516. [Abstract]