The majority of theories about the effects of schemata (or generic knowledge structures) on information processing share two fundamental assumptions. It is assumed, first, that schema-based inferences about unobserved features of an event are generated, and, second, that such inferences are stored in long-term memory and thereby confused with traces of observed features of that event. To test these assumptions, researchers rely heavily on recognition memory measures of hit and false alarm rates. In the present paper, it is observed that schema theoretic interpretations of recognition memory measures are inconsistent with an interpretation jointly derived from the theory of signal detection and Mandler's (1980, Psychological Review, 87, 252–271) subjective familiarity theory of recognition memory; from the latter's perspective, recognition memory measures are considerably more ambiguous than schema researchers realize and do not necessarily support the typical schema theoretic interpretations. Data from four experiments are analyzed from the perspective of the theory of signal detection/ subjective familiarity model and demonstrate the ambiguity of recognition memory measures for testing hypotheses about the function and consequences of schemata for information processing.

An experiment was conducted aimed first at establishing the reliability and validity of a measure of individual differences in sleeping schedules. Two samples of subjects completed a questionnaire concerning their sleeping behavior which was scored according to the diurnal or nocturnal pattern of their responses. The scores were then used to classify subjects as morning people or evening people. Both the internal reliability and cross-time reliability of the scale were assessed and found to be high. In addition, three indices of construct validity, obtained 4 months after the administration of the scale, supported its validity. In a second part of the experiment, subjects classified as either morning or evening people rated themselves on a set of behavioral and personality dimensions. Another sample of subjects indicated their perceptions of morning people and evening people in general, along the same dimensions. It was found that subjects did have strong beliefs about personality and behavioral differences between morning people and evening people. However, the self-perceptions of the actual morning and evening people did not differ, thereby casting doubt on the validity of popular stereotypic perceptions about the two groups.

When faced with the task of making a prediction or estimating a likelihood, it is argued that people often reason about the presence or absence and relative strength of possible causal mechanisms for the production of relevant outcomes. In so doing people rely on “causal cues” or properties of an inferential problem which indicate the nature of the particular causal processes which give rise to specific outcomes. It is hypothesized that causal cues, precisely because they focus attention and thought on specific causal mechanisms, can obscure the relevance of mathematical laws of probability and lead to statistically biased judgment. Two experiments were conducted. Their results support the hypothesis, showing that the incidence of the conjunction fallacy and the base rate fallacy depend on task-specific cues for causal reasoning.

Social stereotypes may be defined as beliefs that various traits or acts are characteristic of particular social groups. As such, stereotypic beliefs represent subjective estimates of the frequencies of attributes within social groups, and so should be expected to “behave like” base-rate information within the context of judgments of individuals: specifically, individuating target case information should induce subjects to disregard their own stereotypic beliefs. Although the results of previous research are consisten with this prediction, no studies have permitted normative evaluation of stereotypic judgments. Because the hypothesis equates base rates and stereotypes, normative evaluation is essential for demonstrating equivalence between the base-rate fallacy and neglect of stereotypes in the presence of individuating case information. Two experiments were conducted, allowing for normative evaluation of effects of stereotypes on judgments of individuals. The results confirmed the hypothesis and established the generalizability of the effect across controversial and uncontroversial, socially desirable and socially underirable stereotypic beliefs. More generally, an examination of the differences between intuitive and normative statistical models of the judgment task suggest that the base-rate fallacy is but one instance of a general characteristic of intuitive judgment processes: namely, the failure to appropriately adjust evaluations of any one cue in the light of concurrent evaluations of other cues.

Several studies demonstrate strong relationships between indices of social class and characteristics of marital attitudes and behavior. Two possible explanations for these relationships are described: one emphasizing the formative effects of occupations and work experiences and the second emphasizing the formative effects of educational attainment. Because most indices of social class are a function of both occupational and educational attainment, the results of previous research do not permit discrimination between the two explanations. Accordingly, national survey data were used to evaluate the validity of each theory. It was found that, net of education, neither female nor male occupational groups differed with respect to fourteen indices of marital attitudes and behavior. Instead education emerged as a major predictor of marital attitudes and behavior. The results of additional analyses of divorce rates provide further support for this conclusion.

Wives' dramatic increase in labor-force participation over the past 30 years has stirred widespread controversy over its effects on the marital relationship. National survey data were used to separately assess the effects of wives' employment and their degree of interest in their work activity on 14 comparatively reliable indicators of marital adjustment and companionship, for both male and female respondents. No evidence was found for any effect of wives' employment or degree of interest in their work activity on marital adjustment and companionship, whether determined on the basis of husbands' or wives' responses. The absence of effects suggests that the extensive controversy over wives' increasing labor-force participation has resulted from some unwarranted assumptions about the impact of wives' working on marital adjustment.