Showing papers by "Arnold D. Well published in 1988"
TL;DR: Judgments were not strongly influenced by whether subjects had previously engaged in overt prediction, and the subjects were quite poor at estimating strength of relationship but, by some measures, good at predicting one variable from another.
Abstract: The present study used both judgments of strength of relationship and measures of the ability to predict one variable from another to assess subjects’ sensitivity to the covariation of two continuous variables. In addition, one group of subjects judged strength of relationship after merely observing the presentation of 60 pairs of two-digit numbers, and a second group made strength judgments after being actively engaged in predicting one member of a pair when given the other. The prediction and judgment data provide different pictures of subjects’ sensitivity to covariation. The subjects were quite poor at estimating strength of relationship but, by some measures, good at predicting one variable from another. Judgments were not strongly influenced by whether subjects had previously engaged in overt prediction. The implications of these results for the literature on covariation estimation are discussed.
13 citations
TL;DR: This paper found that bilinguals took longer than monolinguals to comprehend sentences containing negations, although there were no interactions between sentence construction and language background that would suggest the use of qualitatively different strategies by the two groups.
Abstract: College students who were either monolingual speakers of English or bilingual Hispanics participated in two studies dealing with the comprehension of sentences containing negations. Both the influence of different sentence constructions on comprehension, as well as the heuristics and misconceptions exhibited by subjects as they attempted to comprehend the sentences were investigated. The second experiment was designed primarily to determine whether it was possible to develop an intervention strategy that eliminated the use of erroneous strategies. In the first experiment, bilinguals took longer than monolinguals to comprehend sentences containing negations, although there were no interactions between sentence construction and language background that would suggest the use of qualitatively different strategies by the two groups. The intervention procedure used in the second experiment was extremely effective for monolinguals and for most bilinguals, as measured by performance a week later. When su...