IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/huj/dispap/dp346.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On the Accentuation of Contingencies: The Sensitive Research Designer versus the Intuitive Statistician

Author

Listed:
  • Yaakov Kareev
  • Klaus Fiedler

Abstract

The information used in reaching a decision between alternatives is often gleaned through samples drawn from the distributions of their outcomes. Since in most cases it is the direction of the difference in value, rather than its magnitude, that is of primary interest, the decision maker may benefit from sampling data in a way that will accentuate, rather than accurately estimate, the magnitude of that difference, as it helps to reach a decision swiftly and confidently. A reanalysis of performance in a study by Fiedler, Brinkmann, Betsch, and Wild (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2000, 129, 399-418), in which participants had the freedom to sample data any way they wished, demonstrates that their apparently poor performance as estimators of conditional probability may actually reflect sophisticated sampling, which resulted in accentuating the sample value of the degree of contingency in the data. Thus, participants might be characterized as “sensitive research designers”, intent on increasing the chances of detecting an effect (if one existed).

Suggested Citation

  • Yaakov Kareev & Klaus Fiedler, 2003. "On the Accentuation of Contingencies: The Sensitive Research Designer versus the Intuitive Statistician," Discussion Paper Series dp346, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    • Handle: RePEc:huj:dispap:dp346
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ratio.huji.ac.il/sites/default/files/publications/dp346.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yaakov Kareev & Sharon Arnon & Reut Horwitz-Zeliger, 2002. "On the Misperception of Variability," Discussion Paper Series dp285, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Myrto Pantazi & Olivier Klein & Mikhail Kissine, 2020. "Is justice blind or myopic? An examination of the effects of meta-cognitive myopia and truth bias on mock jurors and judges," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(2), pages 214-229, March.
    2. Greg Barron & Eldad Yechiam, 2009. "The coexistence of overestimation and underweighting of rare events and the contingent recency effect," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(6), pages 447-460, October.
    3. Crosetto, Paolo & Filippin, Antonio & Katuščák, Peter & Smith, John, 2020. "Central tendency bias in belief elicitation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    4. Yaakov Kareev & Massimo Warglien, 2003. "Cognitive Overload and the Evaluation of Risky Alternatives: The Effects of Sample Size, Information Format and Attitude To Risk," Discussion Paper Series dp340, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    5. Erel Avineri & Joseph Prashker, 2006. "The Impact of Travel Time Information on Travelers’ Learning under Uncertainty," Transportation, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 393-408, July.
    6. Marcus Lindskog & Anders Winman, 2014. "Are All Data Created Equal? - Exploring Some Boundary Conditions for a Lazy Intuitive Statistician," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(5), pages 1-10, May.
    7. Innocenti, Alessandro & Lattarulo, Patrizia & Pazienza, Maria Grazia, 2013. "Car stickiness: Heuristics and biases in travel choice," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 158-168.
    8. Sulian Wang & Chen Wang, 2021. "Quantile Judgments of Lognormal Losses: An Experimental Investigation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 78-99, March.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:6:p:447-460 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Alessandro Innocenti & Patrizia Lattarulo & Maria Grazia Pazienza, 2009. "Heuristics and Biases in Travel Mode Choice," Labsi Experimental Economics Laboratory University of Siena 027, University of Siena.
    11. Jordan Tong & Daniel Feiler, 2017. "A Behavioral Model of Forecasting: Naive Statistics on Mental Samples," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(11), pages 3609-3627, November.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:2:p:214-229 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:huj:dispap:dp346. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Michael Simkin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/crihuil.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.