Self-truncated sampling produces more moderate covariation judgment and related decision than descriptive frequency information: The role of regressive frequency estimation

IF 1.3 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY PsyCh journal Pub Date : 2023-12-17 DOI:10.1002/pchj.703
Xuhui Zhang, Junyi Dai
{"title":"Self-truncated sampling produces more moderate covariation judgment and related decision than descriptive frequency information: The role of regressive frequency estimation","authors":"Xuhui Zhang, Junyi Dai","doi":"10.1002/pchj.703","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Covariation judgment underlies a diversity of psychological theories and influences various everyday decisions. Information about covariation can be learned from either a summary description of frequencies (i.e., contingency tables) or trial-by-trial experience (i.e., sampling individual instances). Two studies were conducted to investigate the impact of information learning mode (i.e., description vs. self-truncated sampling) on covariation judgment and related decision. In each trial under the description condition, participants were presented with a contingency table with explicit cell frequencies, whereas in each trial under the self-truncated sampling condition, participants were allowed to determine when to stop sampling instances and thus the actual sample size. To eliminate sampling error, an other-yoked (i.e., between-subject) design was used in this research so that cell frequencies shown in a trial under the description condition were matched with those experienced in a trial under the self-truncated sampling condition. Experiment 1 showed that the self-truncated sampling condition led to more moderate covariation judgments than the description condition (i.e., a description–experience gap). Experiment 2 demonstrated further that the same gap extended to covariation-related decisions in terms of relative contingent preference (RCP). Regressive frequency estimation under self-truncated sampling appeared to underlie the consistent gaps found in the two studies, whereas the impact of regressive diagnosticity (i.e., the same sample of instances was viewed as less diagnostic under description than under self-truncated sampling) or simultaneous overestimation and underweighting of rare instances under experience was not supported by the observed data. Future research might examine alternative accounts of the observed gaps, such as the impacts of belief updating and stopping rule under self-truncated sampling.","PeriodicalId":20804,"journal":{"name":"PsyCh journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PsyCh journal","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.703","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Covariation judgment underlies a diversity of psychological theories and influences various everyday decisions. Information about covariation can be learned from either a summary description of frequencies (i.e., contingency tables) or trial-by-trial experience (i.e., sampling individual instances). Two studies were conducted to investigate the impact of information learning mode (i.e., description vs. self-truncated sampling) on covariation judgment and related decision. In each trial under the description condition, participants were presented with a contingency table with explicit cell frequencies, whereas in each trial under the self-truncated sampling condition, participants were allowed to determine when to stop sampling instances and thus the actual sample size. To eliminate sampling error, an other-yoked (i.e., between-subject) design was used in this research so that cell frequencies shown in a trial under the description condition were matched with those experienced in a trial under the self-truncated sampling condition. Experiment 1 showed that the self-truncated sampling condition led to more moderate covariation judgments than the description condition (i.e., a description–experience gap). Experiment 2 demonstrated further that the same gap extended to covariation-related decisions in terms of relative contingent preference (RCP). Regressive frequency estimation under self-truncated sampling appeared to underlie the consistent gaps found in the two studies, whereas the impact of regressive diagnosticity (i.e., the same sample of instances was viewed as less diagnostic under description than under self-truncated sampling) or simultaneous overestimation and underweighting of rare instances under experience was not supported by the observed data. Future research might examine alternative accounts of the observed gaps, such as the impacts of belief updating and stopping rule under self-truncated sampling.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
与描述性频率信息相比,自截断抽样产生的协变判断和相关决策更为温和:回归频率估计的作用
共变判断是各种心理学理论的基础,并影响着各种日常决策。有关协变的信息可以从频率的简要描述(即或然率表)或逐次试验经验(即对单个实例进行抽样)中获得。为了研究信息学习模式(即描述与自我截断取样)对协方差判断和相关决策的影响,我们进行了两项研究。在描述条件下的每次试验中,被试都会看到一个带有明确单元频率的或然率表;而在自我截断取样条件下的每次试验中,被试可以决定何时停止对实例的取样,从而决定实际的样本量。为了消除抽样误差,本研究采用了他者诱导(即主体间)设计,使描述条件下的试验中显示的单元频率与自我截断抽样条件下的试验中的单元频率相匹配。实验 1 表明,与描述条件相比,自我截断取样条件导致的共变判断更为温和(即描述-体验差距)。实验 2 进一步证明,在相对或然偏好(RCP)方面,同样的差距延伸到了与协变相关的决策。自截断抽样下的倒退频率估计似乎是这两项研究中发现的一致差距的基础,而倒退诊断性(即在描述条件下,同一实例样本被视为诊断性低于自截断抽样条件下)或经验条件下同时高估和低估罕见实例的影响并没有得到观察数据的支持。未来的研究可能会研究观察到的差距的其他解释,如自截断抽样下信念更新和停止规则的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
PsyCh journal
PsyCh journal PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
12.50%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: PsyCh Journal, China''s first international psychology journal, publishes peer‑reviewed research articles, research reports and integrated research reviews spanning the entire spectrum of scientific psychology and its applications. PsyCh Journal is the flagship journal of the Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences – the only national psychology research institute in China – and reflects the high research standards of the nation. Launched in 2012, PsyCh Journal is devoted to the publication of advanced research exploring basic mechanisms of the human mind and behavior, and delivering scientific knowledge to enhance understanding of culture and society. Towards that broader goal, the Journal will provide a forum for academic exchange and a “knowledge bridge” between China and the World by showcasing high-quality, cutting-edge research related to the science and practice of psychology both within and outside of China. PsyCh Journal features original articles of both empirical and theoretical research in scientific psychology and interdisciplinary sciences, across all levels, from molecular, cellular and system, to individual, group and society. The Journal also publishes evaluative and integrative review papers on any significant research contribution in any area of scientific psychology
期刊最新文献
Distributive fairness during the transition to adolescence: The role of peer comparison and social value orientation. The relationship between openness to experience and humor production: Exploring the mediating roles of cognitive flexibility and ambiguity tolerance Does a stronger moral identity lead to a more reserved sense of humor? The influence of moral identity on sense of humor and its underlying psychological mechanisms Peripheral nerve stimulation for lower‐limb postoperative recovery: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials Psychological capacity profiles of different age groups and gender in a national representative sample.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1