Cargando…
Can we shift belief in the ‘Law of Small Numbers’?
‘Sample size neglect’ is a tendency to underestimate how the variability of mean estimates changes with sample size. We studied 100 participants, from science or social science backgrounds, to test whether a training task showing different-sized samples of data points (the ‘beeswarm’ task) can help...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Royal Society
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8889191/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35316946 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.211028 |
_version_ | 1784661342245879808 |
---|---|
author | Bishop, D. V. M. Thompson, Jackie Parker, Adam J. |
author_facet | Bishop, D. V. M. Thompson, Jackie Parker, Adam J. |
author_sort | Bishop, D. V. M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | ‘Sample size neglect’ is a tendency to underestimate how the variability of mean estimates changes with sample size. We studied 100 participants, from science or social science backgrounds, to test whether a training task showing different-sized samples of data points (the ‘beeswarm’ task) can help overcome this bias. Ability to judge if two samples came from the same population improved with training, and 38% of participants reported that they had learned to wait for larger samples before making a response. Before and after training, participants completed a 12-item estimation quiz, including items testing sample size neglect (S-items). Bonus payments were given for correct responses. The quiz confirmed sample size neglect: 20% of participants scored zero on S-items, and only two participants achieved more than 4/6 items correct. Performance on the quiz did not improve after training, regardless of how much learning had occurred on the beeswarm task. Error patterns on the quiz were generally consistent with expectation, though there were some intriguing exceptions that could not readily be explained by sample size neglect. We suggest that training with simulated data might need to be accompanied by explicit instruction to be effective in counteracting sample size neglect more generally. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8889191 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | The Royal Society |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-88891912022-03-21 Can we shift belief in the ‘Law of Small Numbers’? Bishop, D. V. M. Thompson, Jackie Parker, Adam J. R Soc Open Sci Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience ‘Sample size neglect’ is a tendency to underestimate how the variability of mean estimates changes with sample size. We studied 100 participants, from science or social science backgrounds, to test whether a training task showing different-sized samples of data points (the ‘beeswarm’ task) can help overcome this bias. Ability to judge if two samples came from the same population improved with training, and 38% of participants reported that they had learned to wait for larger samples before making a response. Before and after training, participants completed a 12-item estimation quiz, including items testing sample size neglect (S-items). Bonus payments were given for correct responses. The quiz confirmed sample size neglect: 20% of participants scored zero on S-items, and only two participants achieved more than 4/6 items correct. Performance on the quiz did not improve after training, regardless of how much learning had occurred on the beeswarm task. Error patterns on the quiz were generally consistent with expectation, though there were some intriguing exceptions that could not readily be explained by sample size neglect. We suggest that training with simulated data might need to be accompanied by explicit instruction to be effective in counteracting sample size neglect more generally. The Royal Society 2022-03-02 /pmc/articles/PMC8889191/ /pubmed/35316946 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.211028 Text en © 2022 The Authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience Bishop, D. V. M. Thompson, Jackie Parker, Adam J. Can we shift belief in the ‘Law of Small Numbers’? |
title | Can we shift belief in the ‘Law of Small Numbers’? |
title_full | Can we shift belief in the ‘Law of Small Numbers’? |
title_fullStr | Can we shift belief in the ‘Law of Small Numbers’? |
title_full_unstemmed | Can we shift belief in the ‘Law of Small Numbers’? |
title_short | Can we shift belief in the ‘Law of Small Numbers’? |
title_sort | can we shift belief in the ‘law of small numbers’? |
topic | Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8889191/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35316946 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.211028 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bishopdvm canweshiftbeliefinthelawofsmallnumbers AT thompsonjackie canweshiftbeliefinthelawofsmallnumbers AT parkeradamj canweshiftbeliefinthelawofsmallnumbers |