Statistical judgments are influenced by the implied likelihood that samples represent the same population

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 40, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 420-433

  Chesney, Dana L ^a   Obrecht, Natalie A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME   (United States)

^b WILLIAM PATERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Individual differences; Inductive reasoning; Judgment; Mathematical cognition; Reasoning

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HUMAN; INDIVIDUALITY; LEARNING; PROBLEM SOLVING; SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICAL MODEL;

HUMANS; INDIVIDUALITY; JUDGMENT; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; PROBABILITY LEARNING; PROBLEM SOLVING; SAMPLE SIZE; SAMPLING STUDIES;

EID: 84864476550     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: 15325946     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13421-011-0155-3     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Evans, J. St. B. T., & Dusior, A. E. (1977). Proportionality and sample size as factors in intuitive statistical judgments. Acta Psychologica, 41, 129-137. doi: 10. 1016/0001-6918(77)90030-0.
2. Evans, J. St. B. T., & Pollard, P. (1985). Intuitive statistical inferences about normally distributed data. Acta Psychologica, 60, 57-71. doi: 10. 1016/0001-6918(85)90013-7.
3. Gallistel, C. R., & Gelman, R. (2005). Mathematical cognition. In K. Holyoak & R. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 559-588). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Gonzalez, R., & Wu, G. (1999). On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 129-166.
5. Irwin, W. F., Smith, W. A. S., & Mayfield, J. F. (1956). Tests of two theories of decision in an "expanded judgment" situation. Journal of Experiment Psychology, 51, 261-268. doi: 10. 1037/h0041911.
6. Jacobs, J. E., & Narloch, R. H. (2001). Children's use of sample size and variability to make social inferences. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 22, 311-331. doi: 10. 1016/S0193-3973(01)00086-7.
7. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430-454. doi: 10. 1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3.
8. Kushnir, T., Xu, F., & Wellman, H. M. (2010). Young children use statistical sampling to infer the preferences of others. Psychological Science, 21, 1134-1140. doi: 10. 1177/0956797610376652.
9. Lipkus, I. M., Samsa, G., & Rimer, B. K. (2001). General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Medical Decision Making, 21, 37-44. doi: 10. 1177/0272989X0102100105.
10. Masnick, A. M., & Morris, B. J. (2008). Investigating the development of data evaluation: The role of data characteristics. Child Development, 79, 1032-1048. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1467-8624. 2008. 01174. x.
11. Nisbett, R. E., Krantz, D. H., Jepson, C., & Kunda, Z. (1983). The use of statistical heuristics in everyday inductive reasoning. Psychological Review, 90, 339-363. doi: 1037/0033-295X. 90. 4. 339.
12. Obrecht, N. A. (2010). Sample size weighting in probabilistic inference (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.
13. Obrecht, N. A., Chapman, G. B., & Gelman, R. (2007). Intuitive t-tests: Lay use of statistical information. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 1147-1152. doi: 10. 3758/BF03193104.
14. Obrecht, N. A., Chapman, G. B., & Gelman, R. (2009). An encounter frequency account of how experience affects likelihood estimation. Memory & Cognition, 37, 632-643. doi: 10. 3758/MC. 37. 5. 632.
15. Osherson, D. N., Smith, E. E., Wilkie, O., Lopez, A., & Shafir, E. (1990). Category based induction. Psychological Review, 97, 185-200. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 97. 2. 185.
16. Peterson, C. R., & Beach, L. R. (1967). Man as an intuitive statistician. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 29-46. doi: 10. 1037/h0024722.
17. Reyna, V. F., Nelson, W., Han, P., & Dieckmann, N. F. (2009). How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 943-973. doi: 10. 1037/a0017327.
18. Rhodes, M., Brickman, D., & Gelman, S. A. (2008). Sample diversity and premise typically in inductive reasoning: Evidence for developmental change. Cognition, 108, 543-556. doi: 10. 1016/j. cognition. 2008. 03. 002.
19. Sedlmeier, P. (1998). The distribution matters: Two types of sample-size tasks. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11, 281-301. doi: 10. 1002/(SICI)1099-0771(1998120)11: 4< 281:: AID- BDM302> 3. 0. CO; 2-U.
20. Sedlmeier, P., & Gigerenzer, G. (1997). Intuitions about sample size: The empirical law of large numbers. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10, 33-51. doi: 10. 1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199703)10: 1<33:: AID-BDM244> 3. 0. CO; 2-6.
21. Sedlmeier, P., & Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Was Bernouli wrong? On intuitions about sample size. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 133-139. doi: 10. 1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13: 1< 133:: AID-BDM352> 3. 0. CO; 2-H.
22. Ubel, P. A., Jepson, C., & Baron, J. (2001). The inclusion of patient testimonials in decisions aids: Effects on treatment choices. Medical Decision Making, 21, 60-68.
23. Xu, F., & Denison, S. (2009). Statistical inference and sensitivity to sampling in 11-month-old infants. Cognition, 112, 97-104. doi: 10. 1016/j. cognition. 2009. 04. 006.