Cited by 605Social and Intergroup PsychologyDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsCategorization, perception, and language

The dilution effect: Nondiagnostic information weakens the implications of diagnostic information

Open access
Nisbett, Richard E., Zukier, Henry, Lemley, Ronald E.·1981·Cognitive Psychology

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0010-0285(81)90010-4

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The dilution effect occurs when people fail to use diagnostic information in the presence of nondiagnostic information.

    “When individuals make judgments, the dilution effect occurs when people fail to use diagnostic information in the presence of nondiagnostic information (Nisbett et al., 1981).”

    From Setting the future of digital and social media marketing research: Perspectives and research propositions (2021) · cites this paper as Nisbett et al., 1981

    The Results (page unavailable) show that nondiagnostic information diluted the influence of diagnostic information, and in Study 3 it eliminated that influence when the diagnostic information was relatively weak. But the Results also say diagnostic information continued to affect predictions in Studies 1 and 2. Defining the dilution effect as a failure to use diagnostic information overstates the general finding. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 16 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Anderson, N. A simple model for information integration. In R. P. Abelson, et al. (Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A source book. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1968.
  2. Cantor, N., & Mischel, W. Categorization processes in the perception of people. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, New York: Academic Press, 1979. Vol.
  3. Locksley, A., Borgida, E., Brekke, N., & Hepburn C. Sex stereotypes and social judg- ments. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 1980, 39, 821-831.
  4. Meehl, P. E. Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the literature. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1954.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nisbett, R. E., Zukier, H., & Lemley, R. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • The New School (US)
Corresponding author
Nisbett, Richard E.
Venue
Cognitive Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1981-04
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
248-277
ISSN
0010-0285 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2171421397
Cited by
605
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 14
FWCI
26.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
Keywords
dilution effect, diagnostic information, prediction, similarity judgments, stereotypes, individuating information

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review