Abstract
Professor Walker's critique of our article (Maoz and Shayer, 1987) is based on profound misinterpretation of our arguments, methods, and findings. It also misinterprets the procedures in an article that Professor Walker uses as a model of what we should have done (Tetlock, 1985). This results in erroneous inferences regarding potential operational similarities between our measures and those of Tetlock. In addition, the argument that our results are a consequence of a decision to aggregate measures of cognitive complexity across individuals is shown to have no methodological basis when the directional nature of our hypothesis is considered.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have