Statistical judgments are influenced by the implied likelihood that samples represent the same population |
| |
Authors: | Dana L Chesney Natalie A Obrecht |
| |
Institution: | (1) Department of Psychology, University of Notre Dame, 118 Haggar Hall, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA;(2) Department of Psychology, William Paterson University, 300 Pompton Road, Wayne, NJ 07470, USA |
| |
Abstract: | When sample information is combined, it is generally considered normative to weight information based on larger samples more
heavily than information based on smaller samples. However, if samples appear likely to have been drawn from different subpopulations,
it is reasonable to combine estimates of these subpopulation means (typically, the sample means) without weighting these estimates
by sample size. This study investigated whether laypeople are influenced by the likelihood of samples coming from the same
population when determining how to combine information. In two experiments we show that (1) implied binomial variability affected
participants’ judgments of the likelihood that a sample was drawn from a given population, (2) participants' judgments were
more affected by sample size when samples were implied to be drawn randomly from a general population, compared to when they
were implied to be drawn from different subpopulations, and (3) people higher in numeracy gave more normative responses. We
conclude that when determining how to weight and combine samples, laypeople use not only the provided data, but also information
about likelihood and sampling processes that these data imply. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 PubMed SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|