Does decision quality (always) increase with the size of information samples? Some vicissitudes in applying the law of large numbers

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 883-903

  Fiedler, Klaus ^a   Kareev, Yaakov ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^b HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

Author keywords

Choice; Law of the large number; Sampling; Sampling distribution; Small sample advantage

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CONCEPT FORMATION; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; LEARNING; PROBLEM SOLVING;

ALGORITHMS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CONCEPT FORMATION; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; PROBLEM SOLVING; SET (PSYCHOLOGY);

EID: 33746608198     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.32.4.883     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 256-274.
2. 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.
3. Bernoulli, J. (1713). Ars conjectandi [Probability calculation], Basel, Switzerland: 'lliurnisiorum.
4. Borges, B., Goldstein, D. G., Ortmann, A., & Gigerenzer, G. (1999). Can ignorance beat the stock market? In G. Gigerenzer, P. M. Todd, & the ABC Group (Eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 59-72). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Budescu, D. V. (2005). Confidence in aggregation of opinions from multiple sources. In K. Fiedler & P. Juslin (Eds.), Information sampling and adaptive cognition (pp. 327-352). New York: Cambridge University Press.
6. Cowan. N., Johnson, T. D., & Saults, J. S. (2005). Capacity limits in item list recognition: Evidence from proactive interference. Memory, 13, 293-299.
7. Dougherty, M. R. P., Gettys, C. F., & Ogden, E. E. (1999). MINERVADM: A memory processes model for judgments of likelihood. Psychological Review, 106, 180-209.
8. Elman, J. L. (1993). Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of staring small. Cognition, 48, 71-99.
9. Fiedler. K. (1991). The tricky nature of skewed frequency tables: An information loss account of distinctiveness-based illusory correlations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 24-36.
10. Fiedler, K. (1996). Explaining and simulating judgment biases as an aggregation phenomenon in probabilistic, multiple-cue environments. Psychological Review, 103, 193-214.
11. Fiedler. K. (2000). Illusory correlations: A simple associative algorithm provides a convergent account of seemingly divergent paradigms. Review of General Psychology, 4, 25-58.
12. Fiedler, K., Kemmelmeier, M., & Freytag, P. (1999). Explaining asymmetric intergroup judgments through differential aggregation: Computer simulations and some new evidence. European Review of Social. Psychology, 10, 1-40.
13. Fiedler. K., Russer, S., & Gramm, K. (1993). Illusory correlations and memory performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 111-136.
14. Fiedler, K., Semin, G. R., Finkenauer, C., & Berkel, I. (1995). Actorobserver bias in close relationships: The role of self-knowledge and self-related language. Personality and Social. Psychology Bulletin, 21, 525-538.
15. Fiedler. K., & Walther, E. (2003). Stereotyping as inductive hypothesis testing. New York: Psychology Press.
16. Fiedler, K., Walther, E., Freytag, P., & Plessner, H. (2002). Judgment biases in a simulated classroom - A cognitive-environmental approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 527-561.
17. Fiedler, K., Walther, E., & Nickel, S. (1999). The autoverification of social hypotheses: Stereotyping and the power of sample size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 5-18.
18. Forest, J. A., & Feldman, R. S. (2000). Detecting deception and judge's involvement: Lower task involvement leads to better lie detection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 118-125.
19. Gigerenzer, G. (2001). 'Oie adaptive toolbox. In G. Gigerenzer & R. Selten (Eds.), Bounded rationality and the adaptive toolbox (pp. 37-50). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20. Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103, 650-669.
21. Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (2001). Rethinking rationality. In G. Gigerenzer & R. Selten (Eds.), Bounded rationality and the adaptive toolbox (pp. 1-12). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Gonzalez, R., & Nelson, T. O. (1996). Measuring ordinal association in situations that contain tied scores. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 159-165.
23. Goodman, L. A., & Kruskal, W. H. (1954). Measures of association for cross-classification. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 49, 732-764.
24. Hertwig, R., & Todd, P. M. (2003). More is not always better: The benefits of cognitive limits. In B. Hardman & L. March (Eds.), Thinking: Psy chological perspectives on reasoning, judgment and decision making (pp. 213-231). New York: Wiley.
25. Juslin, P., Fiedler. K., & Chater, N. (2005). Less is more in covariation detection - Or is it? In K. Fiedler & P. Juslin (Eds.), Information sampling and adaptive cognition (pp. 92-123). New York: Cambridge University Press.
26. Juslin, P., & Olsson, H. (2005). Capacity limitations and the detection of correlations: Comment on Kareev (2000). Psychological Review, 112, 256-267.
27. Kareev, Y. (1995). Through a narrow window: Working memory capacity and the detection of covariation. Cognition, 56, 263-269.
28. Kareev, Y. (2000). Seven (indeed, plus minus two) and the detection of correlations. Psychological Review, 107, 397-402.
29. Kareev, Y., Lieberman, 1., & Lev, M. (1997). Through a narrow window: Sample size and the perception of correlation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 278-287.
30. Krauss, S., & Wang, X. T. (2003). The psychology of the Monty Hall problem: Discovering psychological mechanisms for solving a tenacious brain teaser. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 3-22.
31. Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: "Seizing" and "freezing." Psychological Review, 103, 263-283.
32. Kuder, G. F., & Richardson, M. W. (1937). The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 2, 151-160.
33. Martignon. L., & Hoffrage. U. (1999). Why does one-reason decisionmaking work? A case study in ecological rationality. In G. Gigerenzer, P. M. Todd, & the ABC Group (Eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 119-140). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
34. 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.
35. Newport, E. L. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14, 11-28.
36. Rosenthal, R. (1987). Judgment studies: Design, analysis, and meta-analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
37. Sande, G. N., Goethals. G. R., & Radioff, C. E. (1988). Perceiving one's own traits and others': The multifaceted self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 13-20.
38. Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of environments. Psychological Review, 63, 129-138.
39. Sines, J. O. (1964). Actuarial methods as appropriate strategy for the validation of diagnostic tests. Psychological Review, 71, 517-523.
40. Webster, D. M. (1993). Motivated augmentation and reduction of the overattribution bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 261-271.
41. Wilson, T. D., & Schooler, J. W. (1991). Thinking too much: Introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 181-192.