Applied Psychological Measurement

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information on The Virtual Advisor

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Strahan, R. F.
Right arrow Articles by Hansen, C. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 2, No. 4, 543-550 (1978)
DOI: 10.1177/014662167800200409

Underestimating Correlation from Scatterplots

Robert F. Strahan

Iowa State University

Chris J. Hansen

Iowa State University

Eighty subjects estimated the correlation coeffi cient, r, for each of 13 computer-printed scatter plots. Making judgments were 46 students in a graduate-level statistics course and 34 faculty and graduate students in a department of psychology. The actual correlation values ranged from .010 to .995, with 200 observations in each scatterplot and with the order of scatterplot presentation ran domized. As predicted, subjects underestimated the degree of actual correlation. Also as predicted, but with substantial moderation by a method-of-presen tation factor, this underestimation was most pro nounced in the middle of the correlational range—between the 0 and 1 extremes. Though per ception of correlation was shown not to be veridical (i.e., in terms of r), little support was given one al ternative view—its being in terms of r 2.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Sociological Methods ResearchHome page
S. LEWANDOWSKY and I. SPENCE
The Perception of Statistical Graphs
Sociological Methods Research, November 1, 1989; 18(2-3): 200 - 242.
[Abstract]

Home page
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL STATISTICSHome page
R. W. Lissitz
Book Reviews: Exploring Data Tables, Trends, and Shapes David C. Hoaglin, Frederick Mosteller, and John W. Tukey (Eds.) New York: Wiley, 1985. xxii + 527 pp
Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, January 1, 1988; 13(2): 183 - 187.
[PDF]

Home page
 Applied Psychological MeasurementHome page
H. Wainer and D. Thissen
On the Robustness of a Class of Naive Estimators
Applied Psychological Measurement, October 1, 1979; 3(4): 543 - 551.
[Abstract]