The impact of situational set on frequency and probabilistic evaluations

Abstract

The regularities of the assimilative and contrastive evaluation of different objects and events have been extensively studied in the experimental psychology of set. In particular, the relevant research has demonstrated the importance of standard values (like basic standard and the adaptation level in the sensory-motor sphere) in the functioning of the sets underlying perceptual evaluations. According to the current research, the evaluation of quantitative, probabilistic and qualitative information in the conditions of uncertainty does not follow the pattern of logical (normative) judgment. It has to be noted that probabilistic and quantitative evaluation has never been studied from the perspective of standard values by Georgian psychology. The given experimental research aims to study the impact of situational standards on quantitative and probabilistic evaluations. According to our theoretical assumptions, quantitative and probabilistic evaluations should be determined by the situational set directed at a corresponding task. Situational set was  experimentally manipulated  through the introduction of a certain objective standard value.

Different situational standards  (e.g. number of country population  and specific and actual showings of human mortality) were introduced as the independent variable; the evaluation of the number of country residents (statistical object) and the reasons for human mortality, like accidents, different diseases, etc (risk related events) were  identified as the dependent variable. The research used the pre and post test measurement design and applied the independent sample comparison method to statistically analyze the data obtained. The given research yielded the following results: 1. As expected,  both evaluations  - quantitative (object- number of population) and probabilistic (object – reason for mortality) turned out to be significantly different from the actual data; 2. Introduction of the above mentioned standards (number of population and concrete examples of mortality reasons with the corresponding showings) had a bigger impact on quantitative evaluations (i.e. object – number of population) than on probabilistic evaluations (object –mortality reason); 3. As expected, in quantitative and probabilistic evaluations the level of confidence and the knowledge related to the objects under evaluation (subjective experience of being informed) showed high level of correlation.  Also, relationship between these factors turned out to be higher in the case of quantitative evaluation. 4. There is significant positive correlation between the number of country residents and the evaluation of the country’s territory, which means that most research participants evaluated the number of population by the size of the country’s territory (e.g. ‘Australia is a separate continent, which means that the number of its population must be high.’). We could assume that in this case the territorial factor serves as a subjective standard for the evaluation process.