And yet the small-sample effect does hold: Reply to Juslin and Olsson (2005) and Anderson, Doherty, Berg, and Friedrich (2005)

Psychological Review

Volumn 112, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 280-285

  Kareev, Yaakov ^a  

^a HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 12344300403     PISSN: 0033295X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.280     Document Type: Review

References (16)

1. Anderson, R. B., Doherty, M. E., Berg, N. D., & Friedrich, J. C. (2005). Sample size and the detection of correlation - A signal detection account: Comment on Kareev (2000) and Juslin and Olsson (2005). Psychological Review. 112, 268-279.
2. Bar-Hillel, M. (1979). The role of sample size in sample evaluation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 24, 245-257.
3. Bar-Hillel, M. (1980). What features make samples seem representative? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6, 578-589.
4. Elman, J. L. (1993). Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of starting small. Cognition, 48, 71-99.
5. Fiedler, K., & Kareev, Y. (2004). Does decision quality (always) increase with the size of information samples? Some vicissitudes in applying the law of large numbers. Manuscript submitted for publication. (Discussion Paper 347, Center for the Study of Rationality, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel)
6. Juslin, P., & Olsson, H. (2005). Capacity limitations and the detection of correlations: Comment on Kareev (2000). Psychological Review, 112, 256-267.
7. Kareev, Y. (1995a). Positive bias in the perception of covariation. Psychological Review, 102, 490-502.
8. Kareev, Y. (1995b). Through a narrow window: Working-memory capacity and the detection of covariation. Cognition, 56, 263-269.
9. Kareev, Y. (2000). Seven (indeed, plus or minus two) and the detection of correlations. Psychological Review, 107, 397-402.
10. Kareev, Y., Lieberman, I., & Lev, M. (1997). Through a narrow window: Sample size and the perception of correlation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 278-287.
11. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
12. Newport, E. L. (1988). Constraints on learning and their role in language acquisition: Studies of the acquisition of American Sign Language. Language Science, 10, 147-172.
13. Newport, E. L. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14, 11-28.
14. Simon, H. A. (1990). Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 1-19.
15. Turkewitz, G., & Kenny, P. A. (1982). Limitations on input as a basis for neural organization and perceptual development: A preliminary theoretical statement. Developmental Psychobiology, 15, 357-368.
16. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). The belief in the "law of small numbers," Psychological Bulletin, 76, 105-110.