Effects of judgmental orientation on use of qualitative and quantitative information for health -related inference

Debate about the effects of two major types of evidence has inspired research that explores the question of whether quantitative or qualitative information is generally more influential. While consensus on this issue remains elusive, judgmental orientation (Zukier & Pepitone, 1984) is promising as a moderator of evidence effects. The current project aimed to replicate and extend the effects of priming individuals with instructions that produce readiness and receptiveness for one type of evidence or the other. The methodology of the Engineer Lawyer Problem (Kahneman & Tversky, 1973; Zukier & Pepitone, 1984) was adapted to an illness diagnosis situation, as participants recorded numeric probability estimates when confronted with base rates of populations and descriptions of target individuals designed to represent a high or low likelihood of illness. The three current studies provided qualified support for the premise of judgmental orientation as a moderating factor in individuals\u27 use of base rates and descriptive information. The first pilot study indicated the privileging of descriptive information by participants instructed to adopt narrative orientations and the privileging of base-rate information by participants instructed to adopt paradigmatic orientations. The second pilot study detected the interaction of description type and orientation variables that is associated with the orientation phenomenon. The Main Study exhibited only marginally significant interactions of evidence types and orientation. Notable prescriptions for subsequent research include slight alterations to instructions used in the Main Study, investigation across different communication channels, and further efforts to link the current work with important constructs found in preeminent health cognition models