Kemmelmeier (2007) challenges the notion of conversational basis of the dilution effect by providing a reanalysis of Igou and Bless (2005), new data, and a metaanalysis. Responding to this evidence, Igou (2007) raises a number of objections that are demonstrated to be without merit against the conclusion that the dilution effect is not the result of the applicable conversational norms. However, Igou points to an unanswered question concerning the role of processing motivation in the emergence of the dilution effect.
Hilton, D. J., & Slugoski, B. (2003). Conversational processes in reasoning and explanation. In A. Tesser & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intraindividual processes (pp. 181–206). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
2.
Igou, E. R. (2007). Additional thoughts on conversational and motivational sources of the dilution effect. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26(1), 61–68.
3.
Igou, E. R., & Bless, H. (2005). The conversational basis for the dilution effect. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 25–35.
4.
Kemmelmeier, M. (2004) Separating the wheat from the chaff: Does discriminating between diagnostic and nondiagnostic information eliminate the dilution effect?Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17, 231–243.
5.
Kemmelmeier, M. (2007). Does the dilution effect have a conversational basis?Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26(1), 48–60.
6.
LaBella, C., & Koehler, D. J. (2004). Dilution and confirmation of probability judgments based on nondiagnostic evidence. Memory and Cognition, 32, 1076–1089.
7.
Neuberg, S. L., & Newsom, J. T. (1993). Personal need for structure: Individual differences in the desire for simple structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 113–131.
8.
Nisbett, R. E., Zukier, H., & Lemley, R. (1981). The dilution effect: Non-diagnostic information weakens the implications of diagnostic information. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 248–277.
9.
Roman, R. J., Moskowitz, G. B., Stein, M. I., & Eisenberg, R. F. (1995). Individual differences in experiment participation: Structure, autonomy, and the time of the semester. Journal of Personality, 63, 113–138.
10.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1997). Eight common but false objections to the discontinuation of significance testing in the analysis of research data. In L. L. Harlow, S. A. Mulaik, & J. H. Steiger (Eds.), What if there were no significance tests? (pp. 37–64). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
Schwarz, N. (1996). Cognition and communication: Judgmental biases, research methods and the logic of conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13.
Tetlock, P. E., & Boettger, R. (1989). Accountability: A social magnifier of the dilution effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 388–398.
14.
Tetlock, P. E., Lerner, J. S., & Boettger, R. (1996). The dilution effect: Judgmental bias, conversational convention, or a bit of both?European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 915–934.
15.
Troutman, C. M., & Shanteau, J. (1977). Inferences based on nondiagnostic information. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Performance, 19, 43–55.
16.
Waller, W. S., & Zimbelman, M. F. (2003). A cognitive footprint in archival data: Generalizing the dilution effect from laboratory to field settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Performance, 91, 254–268.
