| Abstract: | When people estimate the probability of an event using a list that includes all or most of the possible events, their estimate of that probability is lower than if the other possible events are not explicitly identified on the list (i.e., are collapsed into an all-other-possibilities category). This list-length (or pruning) effect has been demonstrated to occur even for people who have expertise or considerable knowledge in the event domain. We reasoned that the experts used in previous studies would be unlikely to have probabilistic representations of their problem domains (e.g., auto mechanics, auditors, hospitality managers). We used baseball experts (n= 35) and novices (n = 56) on the assumption that expertise in baseball almost certainly involves mental representations of probability for various baseball events. Subjects estimated the frequency of hits, walks, strikeouts, putouts, and “all other” outcomes for an average major league player in 100 times at bat. Other subjects estimated these event outcome frequencies in a short-list condition (e.g., strikeouts, walks, and “all other”). Strong list-length effects were observed with novices; the frequency estimate for strikeouts, for example, was nearly twice as high in the short-list condition as in the long-list condition. Experts, however, showed no list-length effect and their estimated probabilities were very near the actual (normatively correct) probabilities in all conditions. We argue that the omission effect can be overridden by strong mental representations of the family of possible events and/or a clear knowledge of the probabilities associated with the events. As well, we argue that list-length effects seem to result at least in part from an anchoring-and-adjustment strategy. |
