Decisions from experience: Why small samples?

Cognition

Volumn 115, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 225-237

  Hertwig, Ralph ^a   Pleskac, Timothy J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BASEL   (Switzerland)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Amplification effect; Choice; Decisions from experience; Sampling; Small samples

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; PERSONAL EXPERIENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

ALGORITHMS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; LEARNING; MALE; RESEARCH DESIGN; SAMPLE SIZE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77649188951     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.12.009     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Anderson R.B., Doherty M.E., Berg N.D., and Friedrich J.C. Sample size and the detection of correlation - A signal detection account: Comment on Kareev (2000) and Juslin and Olsson (2005). Psychological Review 112 (2005) 268-279
2. Barron G., and Erev I. Small feedback-based decisions and their limited correspondence to description-based decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 16 (2003) 215-233
3. Berry D., and Fristedt B. Bandit problems (1985), Chapman and Hall, London
4. Brandstätter E., Gigerenzer G., and Hertwig R. The priority heuristic: Making choices without trade-offs. Psychological Review 113 (2006) 409-432
5. Busemeyer J.R., and Townsend J.T. Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review 100 (1993) 432-459
6. Coombs C.H., and Avrunin G.S. Single-peaked functions and the theory of preference. Psychological Review 84 (1977) 216-230
7. Daston L.J. Classical probability in the enlightenment (1988), Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
8. Erev I., and Barron G. On adaptation, maximization, and reinforcement learning among cognitive strategies. Psychological Review 112 (2005) 912-931
9. Erev I., Glozman I., and Hertwig R. What impacts the impact of rare events. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 36 (2008) 153-177
10. Fiedler K., and Kareev Y. 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 32 (2006) 883-903
11. Fong G.T., Krantz D.H., and Nisbett R.E. The effects of statistical training on thinking about everyday problems. Cognitive Psychology 18 (1986) 253-292
12. Fox C.R., and Hadar L. "Decisions from experience" = sampling error + prospect theory: Reconsidering Hertwig, Barron, Weber & Erev (2004). Judgment and Decision Making 1 (2006) 159-161
13. Gigerenzer G., Swijtink Z., Porter T., Daston L., Beatty J., and Krüger L. The empire of chance. How probability changed science and everyday life (1989), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England
14. Griffin D., and Tversky A. The weighing of evidence and the determinants of confidence. Cognitive Psychology 24 (1992) 411-435
15. Harrison G.W. Theory and misbehavior of first-price auctions: Reply. American Economic Review 82 (1992) 1426-1443
16. Hau R., Pleskac T.J., and Hertwig R. Decisions from experience and statistical probabilities: Why they trigger different choices than a priori probabilities. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 23 (2010) 46-68
17. Hau R., Pleskac T.J., Kiefer J., and Hertwig R. The description-experience gap in risky choice. The role of sample size and experienced probabilities. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 21 (2008) 493-518
18. Heinrich B. "Majoring" and "minoring" by foraging bumblebees, Bombus vagans: An experimental analysis. Ecology 60 (1979) 245-255
19. Hertwig R., Barron G., Weber E.U., and Erev I. Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychological Science 15 (2004) 534-539
20. Hertwig R., and Erev I. The description-experience gap in risky choice. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13 (2009) 517-523
21. Hertwig R., Pachur T., and Kurzenhäuser S. Judgments of risk frequencies: Tests of possible cognitive mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 31 (2005) 621-642
22. Hertwig R., and Pleskac T.J. The game of life: How small samples render choice simpler. In: Chater N., and Oaksford M. (Eds). The probabilistic mind: Prospects for Bayesian cognitive science (2008), Oxford University Press, Oxford, England 209-235
23. Johnson T.R., Budescu D.V., and Wallsten T.S. Averaging probability judgments: Monte Carlo analyses of asymptotic diagnostic value. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 14 (2001) 123-140
24. Juslin P., Fiedler K., and Chater N. Less is more in covariation detection-Or is it?. In: Fiedler K., and Juslin P. (Eds). Information sampling and adaptive cognition (2006), Cambridge University Press, New York 92-123
25. Juslin P., and Olsson H. Capacity limitations and the detection of correlations: Comment on Kareev (2000). Psychological Review 112 (2005) 256-267
26. Kahneman D., and Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47 (1979) 263-291
27. Kareev Y. Through a narrow window: Working memory capacity and the detection of covariation. Cognition 56 (1995) 263-269
28. Kareev Y. Seven (indeed, plus or minus two) and the detection of correlations. Psychological Review 107 (2000) 397-402
29. Kareev Y. And yet the small-sample effect does hold: Reply to Juslin and Olsson (2005) and Anderson, Doherty, Berg, and Friedrich (2005). Psychological Review 112 (2005) 280-285
30. Knight F.H. Risk, uncertainty and profit (1921), Hart, Schaffner & Marx; Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA
31. Link S.W. The wave theory of difference and similarity (1992), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ
32. McNamara J.M., and Houston A.I. Optimal foraging and learning. Journal of Theoretical Biology 117 (1985) 231-249
33. McNamara J.M., and Houston A.I. Memory and the efficient use of information. Journal of Theoretical Biology 125 (1987) 385-395
34. Miller G.A. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63 (1956) 81-97
35. Mosteller F., and Nogee P. An experimental measurement of utility. The Journal of Political Economy 59 (1951) 371-404
36. Pachur T., and Hertwig R. On the psychology of the recognition heuristic: Retrieval primacy as a key determinant of its use. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 32 (2006) 983-1002
37. Rakow, and Newell. Degrees of uncertainty: An overview and framework for research on experience-based choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 23 (2010) 1-14
38. Rakow T., Demes K.A., and Newell B.R. Biased samples not mode of presentation: Re-examining the apparent underweighting of rare events in experience-based choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 106 (2008) 168-179
39. Real L.A. Animal choice behavior and the evolution of cognitive architecture. Science 253 (1991) 980-986
40. Real L.A. Information processing and the evolutionary ecology of cognitive architecture. American Naturalist 140 (1992) S108-S145 (Behavioral mechanisms in evolutionary ecology)
41. Reutskaja E., and Hogarth R.M. Satisfaction in choice as a function of the number of alternatives: When "goods satiate". Psychology & Marketing 26 (2009) 197-203
42. Sedlmeier P., and Gigerenzer G. Intuitions about sample size: The empirical law of large numbers. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 10 (1997) 33-51
43. Shafir S., and Roughgarden J. Testing predictions of foraging theory for a sit-and-wait forager, Anolis gingivinus. Behavioral Ecology 9 (1998) 74-84
44. Shanteau J., and Thomas R.P. Fast and frugal heuristics: What about unfriendly environments?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (2000) 762-763
45. Simon H.A. Reason in human affairs (1983), Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA
46. Smith V.L. Microeconomic systems as an experimental science. American Economic Review 72 (1982) 923-955
47. Sutton R.S., and Barto A.G. Reinforcement learning: An introduction (1998), The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
48. Ungemach C., Chater N., and Stewart N. Are probabilities overweighted or underweighted, when rare outcomes are experienced (rarely)?. Psychological Science 20 (2009) 473-479
49. Urban F.M. The method of constant stimuli and its generalizations. Psychological Review 17 (1910) 229-259
50. von Winterfeldt D., and Edwards W. Decision analysis and behavioral research (1986), Cambridge University Press, New York
51. Vul E., Goodman N.D., Griffiths T.L., and Tenenbaum J.B. One and done? Optimal decisions from very few samples. In: Taatgen N.A., and van Rijn H. (Eds). Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the cognitive science society (2009), Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX 66-72
52. Weber E.U., Shafir S., and Blais A.R. Predicting risk sensitivity in humans and lower animals: Risk as variance or coefficient of variation. Psychological Review 111 (2004) 430-445