Loading…

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&#...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Royal Society open science 2022-03, Vol.9 (3), p.211028
Main Authors: Bishop, D V M, Thompson, Jackie, Parker, Adam J
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c488t-b04198b1a8378877f6419bdc0269a9dca21d8582a663767d11336f50d2cc693d3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c488t-b04198b1a8378877f6419bdc0269a9dca21d8582a663767d11336f50d2cc693d3
container_end_page
container_issue 3
container_start_page 211028
container_title Royal Society open science
container_volume 9
creator Bishop, D V M
Thompson, Jackie
Parker, Adam J
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.
doi_str_mv 10.1098/rsos.211028
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_908ede175d0549768d1b6f7bb581932f</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_908ede175d0549768d1b6f7bb581932f</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2642328966</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c488t-b04198b1a8378877f6419bdc0269a9dca21d8582a663767d11336f50d2cc693d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkU1P3DAQhq2qVUFbTr1XvlGpWuqxE3t8AVUroEir9gA9W_5kg5KY2tmi_nuyXYrgNF-vnpnRS8hHYCfANH4tNdcTDsA4viGHnLXNslVMvH2RH5CjWu8YY9AyoaR6Tw5EK0DqRh4SvrIjfYi0bro0URf7LibajXTaRHq8tg80J3o92L6nP7aDi6Uen30g75Ltazx6igvy6-L8ZvV9uf55ebX6tl76BnFaOtaARgcWhUJUKsm5dsEzLrXVwVsOAVvkVsrdVQFACJlaFrj3UosgFuRqzw3Z3pn70g22_DXZduZfI5dbY8vU-T4azTCGCKoN89NaSQzgZFLOtQha8DSzTves-60bYvBxnIrtX0FfT8ZuY27zH4OIGjTMgM9PgJJ_b2OdzNBVH_vejjFvq-Gy4YKjnp9ZkC97qS-51hLT8xpgZmea2Zlm9qbN6k8vL3vW_rdIPALHIo9y</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2642328966</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Can we shift belief in the 'Law of Small Numbers'?</title><source>Open Access: PubMed Central</source><source>Royal Society Open Access Journals</source><creator>Bishop, D V M ; Thompson, Jackie ; Parker, Adam J</creator><creatorcontrib>Bishop, D V M ; Thompson, Jackie ; Parker, Adam J</creatorcontrib><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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2054-5703</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2054-5703</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1098/rsos.211028</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35316946</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: The Royal Society</publisher><subject>online training ; power ; Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience ; Registered Report ; sample size neglect ; statistical reasoning</subject><ispartof>Royal Society open science, 2022-03, Vol.9 (3), p.211028</ispartof><rights>2022 The Authors.</rights><rights>2022 The Authors. 2022</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c488t-b04198b1a8378877f6419bdc0269a9dca21d8582a663767d11336f50d2cc693d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c488t-b04198b1a8378877f6419bdc0269a9dca21d8582a663767d11336f50d2cc693d3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1367-2282 ; 0000-0003-2851-3636 ; 0000-0002-2448-4033</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8889191/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8889191/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,3309,27901,27902,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35316946$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bishop, D V M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thompson, Jackie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parker, Adam J</creatorcontrib><title>Can we shift belief in the 'Law of Small Numbers'?</title><title>Royal Society open science</title><addtitle>R Soc Open Sci</addtitle><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.</description><subject>online training</subject><subject>power</subject><subject>Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience</subject><subject>Registered Report</subject><subject>sample size neglect</subject><subject>statistical reasoning</subject><issn>2054-5703</issn><issn>2054-5703</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNpVkU1P3DAQhq2qVUFbTr1XvlGpWuqxE3t8AVUroEir9gA9W_5kg5KY2tmi_nuyXYrgNF-vnpnRS8hHYCfANH4tNdcTDsA4viGHnLXNslVMvH2RH5CjWu8YY9AyoaR6Tw5EK0DqRh4SvrIjfYi0bro0URf7LibajXTaRHq8tg80J3o92L6nP7aDi6Uen30g75Ltazx6igvy6-L8ZvV9uf55ebX6tl76BnFaOtaARgcWhUJUKsm5dsEzLrXVwVsOAVvkVsrdVQFACJlaFrj3UosgFuRqzw3Z3pn70g22_DXZduZfI5dbY8vU-T4azTCGCKoN89NaSQzgZFLOtQha8DSzTves-60bYvBxnIrtX0FfT8ZuY27zH4OIGjTMgM9PgJJ_b2OdzNBVH_vejjFvq-Gy4YKjnp9ZkC97qS-51hLT8xpgZmea2Zlm9qbN6k8vL3vW_rdIPALHIo9y</recordid><startdate>202203</startdate><enddate>202203</enddate><creator>Bishop, D V M</creator><creator>Thompson, Jackie</creator><creator>Parker, Adam J</creator><general>The Royal Society</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1367-2282</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2851-3636</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2448-4033</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202203</creationdate><title>Can we shift belief in the 'Law of Small Numbers'?</title><author>Bishop, D V M ; Thompson, Jackie ; Parker, Adam J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c488t-b04198b1a8378877f6419bdc0269a9dca21d8582a663767d11336f50d2cc693d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>online training</topic><topic>power</topic><topic>Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience</topic><topic>Registered Report</topic><topic>sample size neglect</topic><topic>statistical reasoning</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bishop, D V M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thompson, Jackie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parker, Adam J</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Royal Society open science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bishop, D V M</au><au>Thompson, Jackie</au><au>Parker, Adam J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Can we shift belief in the 'Law of Small Numbers'?</atitle><jtitle>Royal Society open science</jtitle><addtitle>R Soc Open Sci</addtitle><date>2022-03</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>211028</spage><pages>211028-</pages><issn>2054-5703</issn><eissn>2054-5703</eissn><abstract>'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.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>The Royal Society</pub><pmid>35316946</pmid><doi>10.1098/rsos.211028</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1367-2282</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2851-3636</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2448-4033</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2054-5703
ispartof Royal Society open science, 2022-03, Vol.9 (3), p.211028
issn 2054-5703
2054-5703
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_908ede175d0549768d1b6f7bb581932f
source Open Access: PubMed Central; Royal Society Open Access Journals
subjects online training
power
Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience
Registered Report
sample size neglect
statistical reasoning
title Can we shift belief in the 'Law of Small Numbers'?
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-03T09%3A33%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Can%20we%20shift%20belief%20in%20the%20'Law%20of%20Small%20Numbers'?&rft.jtitle=Royal%20Society%20open%20science&rft.au=Bishop,%20D%20V%20M&rft.date=2022-03&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=211028&rft.pages=211028-&rft.issn=2054-5703&rft.eissn=2054-5703&rft_id=info:doi/10.1098/rsos.211028&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2642328966%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c488t-b04198b1a8378877f6419bdc0269a9dca21d8582a663767d11336f50d2cc693d3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2642328966&rft_id=info:pmid/35316946&rfr_iscdi=true