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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bishop, D. V. M., Thompson, Jackie, Parker, Adam J.
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