Self-truncated sampling produces more moderate covariation judgment and related decision than descriptive frequency information: The role of regressive frequency estimation
{"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":"4 1","pages":""},"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.
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