The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ease of retrieval as information: another look at the availability heuristic
Open accessAbstract
Es wird von drei Experimenten berichtet, die zeigen, daß Individuen subjektiv erlebtes Erinnerungsvermögen als Information bei der Bewertung der Bedeutung des Erinnerten benutzen. Besonders diejenigen Testpersonen, die sich an Situationen erinnern sollten, in denen sie sich positiv verhielten und sich wohlfühlten, schätzten sich im Rückblick positiver ein als Personen, die sich Situationen ins Gedächtnis rufen sollten, in denen sie sich nicht positiv verhielten und sich unsicher fühlten. Dieser Effekt der Wertigkeit der Erinnerung bestand jedoch nur bei denjenigen Testpersonen, die sich an sechs Beispiele der betreffenden Wertigkeit erinnern sollten, was ihnen leichtfiel. Wenn sich die Personen an zwölf Beispiele erinnern sollten, was sie schwierig fanden, kehrte sich die Wirkung der Wertigkeit ins Gegenteil um. In diesem Fall berichteten die Testpersonen eher von einem positiven Gefühl bei der Erinnerung an Beispiele negativen als an Beispiele positiven Verhaltens. Offensichtlich kamen sie zu dem Schluß, daß die Verhaltensweisen, an die sie sich erinnerten, nicht häufig oder typisch sein konnten, wenn sie nur schwierig ins Gedächtnis zu rufen waren (Experimente 1 und 2). In Übereinstimmung mit dieser Interpretation wurde die Wirkung des erlebten Erinnerungsvermögens ausgeschaltet, wenn die Testpersonen ihre subjektiven Erfahrungen irrigerweise auf die Wirkung vorübergehender äußerer Einflüsse zurückführen konnten (Experiment 3). Diskutiert werden die Konsequenzen für das Wirken besonders der Verfügbarkeitsheuristik und der Funktionen subjektiver Erfahrungen als Information im allgemeinen. (ICAübers)
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“While these challenges do not negate the applicability of LLMs in psychological research, they do highlight the need for robust, standardized methods akin to those used in traditional human research (124, 127).”
From Perils and opportunities in using large language models in psychological research (2024) · cites this paper as [127]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9 · Cited by 9,984
Bem, D. J. (1972) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60024-6 · Cited by 5,241
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.513 · Cited by 4,952
Self-citationWyer, R. S., & Srull, T. K. (2014) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315807102 · Cited by 4,211
Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment.
Cherniak, C., Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. D. (1983) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2184495 · Cited by 4,196
(1967) · Cited by 3,831
Miller, G. A., & Cantor, N. E. (1982) · Social Cognition · doi:10.1521/soco.1982.1.1.83 · Cited by 2,862
On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning.
Jacoby, L. L., & Dallas, M. (1981) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037//0096-3445.110.3.306 · Cited by 2,562
New directions in attribution research
Harvey, J. H., Ickes, W. J., & Kidd, R. F. (1976) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,994
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Gabrielcik, A , & Fazio, R. H. (1984). Priming and frequency estima tion: A strict test of the availability heuristic. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 10. 85-89.
- Higgins, E. T., & Bargh, J. A. (19E7). Social cognition and social per ception. Annual Review o f Psychology, 38. 369-425.
- Schwarz, N" & Clore, G. L. (1988). How do I feel about it? Informative functions of afTective states. In K. Fiedler & J. Forgas (Eds), Affect, cognition, and social behavior (pp. 25-43). Toronto, Ontario, Can ada; Hogrefe International
- Sherman, S. J, & Corty, E. (1984). Cognitive heuristics. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds). Handbook o f social cognition (Vol. I, pp. 189-286).
- Zillman, D. (1978). Attribution and misattribution of excitatory reac tions. In J. H. Harvey W I. Ickes, 4. R. E Kidd (Eds), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 2, pp. 335-368). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality.
Kahneman, D. (2003) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.58.9.697 · Cited by 5,540
Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00003435 · Cited by 4,481
Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment
Bottom, W. P., Gilovich, T. D., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. J. (2004) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/20159081 · Cited by 3,583
Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment.
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.004 · Cited by 3,476
Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the Perceiver's Processing Experience?
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3 · Cited by 3,149
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A.
- Affiliations
- Zentrum für Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen (DE)
- Max Planck Society (DE)
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 1991-08
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 195-202
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2147792648
- Cited by
- 1,412
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 32 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 65 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 80 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 61 · 2016: 79 · 2015: 72 · 2014: 58 · 2013: 54 · 2012: 85
- FWCI
- 3.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ssoar.info
- Locations
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Social Science Open Access Repository (GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences) (submittedVersion)
- OpenGrey (Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique) (submittedVersion)
- Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
- Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Identity, Memory, and Therapy
- Keywords
- availability heuristic, ease of retrieval, subjective experience, self-assessment, positive and negative memories, typicality
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
