Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T14:41:51.113Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Good Sampling, Distorted Views: The Perception of Variability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2010

Yaakov Kareev
Affiliation:
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Klaus Fiedler
Affiliation:
Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Germany
Peter Juslin
Affiliation:
Umeå Universitet, Sweden
Get access

Summary

Time pressure, structural limitations of the cognitive system, or paucity of available data often force people to make do with but a sample, when they try to learn of the characteristics of their environment. In such cases, sample statistics must be relied upon to infer the parameter values in the population. Because sample data provide, by definition, only a partial view of reality, the degree to which that view is a veridical reflection of reality is of great importance. It is well known that, in the quest for accurate estimates of population parameters, larger samples are to be preferred over smaller ones. This is so since the variance of the sampling distribution of any statistic is inversely related to sample size (typically to the square root of it). Still, often the size of the sample available is quite small. Consider, for example, one important limiting factor, working-memory capacity – a structural characteristic of the human cognitive system that determines the number of items that can be considered simultaneously; it is about seven items for an average adult (Miller, 1956) and could even be considerably lower than that (see Cowan, 2001, for an estimate as low as four). Nonetheless, even if the samples used by people are typically quite small in size, some solace may be obtained if one could assume their statistics to provide unbiased estimates of the population parameters in question.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bacon, F. (1620/1905). Novum Organum (transl. R. L. Ellis & J. Spedding, edited by J. M. Robertson). London: George Routledge and SonsGoogle Scholar
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A consideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de-Jong, P. F., & Das-Smaal, E. A. (1995). Attention and intelligence: The validity of the Star Counting Test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 80–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 21–38CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilbert, D. T., Pelham, B. W., & Krull, D. S. (1988). On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meet persons perceived. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 733–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, W. L. (1963). Statistics for psychologists. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & WinstonGoogle Scholar
Hogarth, R. M., & Einhorn, H. J. (1992). Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huttenlocher, J., & Burke, D. (1976). Why does memory span increase with age?Cognitive Psychology, 8, 1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jurden, F. H. (1995). Individual differences in working memory and complex cognition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kareev, Y. (1995). Through a narrow window: Working memory capacity and the detection of covariation. Cognition, 56, 263–269CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kareev, Y., Arnon, S., & Horwitz-Zeliger, R. (2002). On the misperception of variability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 287–297CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kareev, Y., Lieberman, I., & Lev, M. (1997). Through a narrow window: Sample size and the perception of correlation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 278–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linville, P. W., & Fischer, G. W. (1993). Exemplar and abstraction models of perceived group variability and stereotypicality. Social Cognition, 11, 92–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linville, P. W., & Fischer, G. W. (1998). Group variability and covariation: Effects of intergroup judgment and behavior. In Sedikides, C., Schopler, J., et al. (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 123–150). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
Linville, P. W., Fischer, G. W., & Salovey, P. (1989). Perceived distributions of the characteristics of in-group and out-group members: Empirical evidence and a computer simulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 165–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linville, P. W., & Jones, E. E. (1980). Polarized appraisals of out-group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 689–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandler, G. (1967). Organization and Memory. In Spence, K. W. & Spence, J. T. (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation, (Vol. 1, pp. 328–372). New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peterson, C. R., & Beach, L. F. (1967). Man as an intuitive statistician. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 29–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, P. (1984). Intuitive judgments of proportions, means, and variances: A review. Current Psychological Research and Review, 3, 5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173–220). San Diego: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 105–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×