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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Royal Society open science 2022-03, Vol.9 (3), p.211028 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
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>DOAJÂ 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 |