Where did that come from?—Identifying the source of a sample

REFERENCES

• Anderson, J. R. (1991). The adaptive nature of human categorization. Psychological Review, 98, 409–429. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.98.3.409
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bar-Hillel, M. (1979). The role of sample size in sample evaluation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 24, 245–257. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(79)90028-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beach, L. R., Wise, J. A., & Barclay, S. (1970). Sample proportions and subjective probability revisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5, 183–190. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(70)90014-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brunswik, E. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review, 62, 193–217. doi: 10.1037/h0047470
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Busemeyer, J. R., Myung, I. J., & McDaniel, M. A. (1993). Cue competition effects: Empirical tests of adaptive network learning models. Psychological Science, 4, 190–195. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00486.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Busemeyer, J. R. & Townsend, J. T. (1993). Decision field-theory: A dynamic cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review, 100, 432–459. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.432
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chesney, D. L., & Obrecht, N. A. (2012). Statistical judgments are influenced by the implied likelihood that samples represent the same population. Memory & Cognition, 40, 420–433. doi: 10.3758/s13421-011-0155-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowan, N. (2000). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–114. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X01003922
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dougherty, M. R. P., Gettys, C. F., & Ogden, E. E. (1999). MINERVA-DM: A memory processes model for judgments of likelihood. Psychological Review, 106, 180–209. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.106.1.180
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dougherty, M. R. P., & Hunter, J. E. (2003). Hypothesis generation, probability judgment, and individual differences in working memory capacity. Acta Psychologica, 113, 263–282. doi: 10.1016/S0001-6918(03)00033-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. T., & Dusoir, A. E. (1977). Proportionality and sample size as factors in intuitive statistical judgement. Acta Psychologica, 41, 129–137. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(77)90030-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. T., & Pollard, P. (1985). Intuitive statistical inferences about normally distributed data. Acta Psychologica, 60, 57–71. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(85)90013-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiedler, K. (2000). Beware of samples! a cognitive-ecological sampling approach to judgment biases. Psychological Review, 107, 659–676. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.107.4.659
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiedler, K. & Juslin, P. (Eds.). (2006). Information sampling and adaptive cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fox, S., & Thornton, G. C. (1993). Implicit distribution theory: The influence of cognitive representation of differentiation on actual ratings. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 259–276. doi: 10.2466/pms.1993.76.1.259
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaissmaier, W., Schooler, L. J., & Rieskamp, J. (2006). Simple predictions fueled by capacity limitations: When are they successful?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 966–982.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galesic, M., Olsson, H., & Rieskamp, J. (2012). Social sampling explains apparent biases in judgments of social environments. Psychological Science, 23, 1515–1523. doi: 10.1177/0956797612445313
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. W., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.). (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. New York: Krieger Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Griffin, D. W., & Tversky, A. (1992). The weighing of evidence and the determinants of confidence. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 411–435. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(92)90013-R
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2006). Optimal predictions in everyday cognition. Psychological Science, 17, 767–773. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01780.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2011). Predicting the future as bayesian inference: People combine prior knowledge with observations when estimating duration and extent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 725–743. doi: 10.1037/a0024899
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gweon, H., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Schulz, L. E. (2010). Infants consider both the sample and the sampling process in inductive generalization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 9066–9071. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1003095107
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansson, P., Rönnlund, M., Juslin, P., & Nilsson, L.-G. (2008). Adult age differences in the realism of confidence judgments: Overconfidence, format dependence, and cognitive predictors. Psychology and Aging, 23, 531–544. doi: 10.1037/a0012782
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E. U., & Erev, I. (2004). Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychological Science, 15, 534–539. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00715.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hertwig, R. & Pleskac, T. J. (2010). Decisions from experience: Why small samples?. Cognition, 115, 225–237. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.12.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogarth, R. M. & Einhorn, H. J. (1992). Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1–55. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(92)90002-J
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jako, R. A. & Murphy, K. R. (1990). Distributional ratings, judgment decomposition, and their impact on interrater agreement and rating accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 500–505. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.500
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juslin, P., Karlsson, L., & Olsson, H. (2008). Information integration in multiple cue judgment: A division of labor hypothesis. Cognition, 106, 259–298. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.02.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juslin, P., Nilsson, H., Winman, A., & Lindskog, M. (2011). Reducing cognitive biases in probabilistic reasoning by the use of logarithm formats. Cognition, 120, 248–267. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.05.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juslin, P., Winman, A., & Hansson, P. (2007). The naïve intuitive statistician: A naïve sampling model of intuitive confidence intervals. Psychological Review, 114, 678–703. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.114.3.678
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kacelnik, A., & Bateson, M. (1996). Risky theories—the effects of variance on foraging decisions. American Zoologist, 36, 402–434.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93, 136–153. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.136
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430–454. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kareev, Y., Arnon, S., & Horwitz-Zeliger, R. (2002). On the misperception of variability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 287–297. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.131.2.287
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Layman, M., & Combs, B. (1978). Judged frequency of lethal events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 551–578.
   Google Scholar
• Lindskog, M., Winman, A., & Juslin, P. (2013a). Calculate or wait: Is man an eager or a lazy intuitive statistician?. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 994–1014. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2013.841170
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindskog, M., Winman, A., & Juslin, P. (2013b). Naïve point estimation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 782–800.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google 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, 165–188. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.165
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipkus, I. M. & Peters, E. (2009). Understanding the role of numeracy in health: Proposed theoretical framework and practical insights. Health Education & Behavior, 36, 1065–1081. doi: 10.1177/1090198109341533
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipkus, I. M., Samsa, G., & Rimer, B. K. (2001). General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Medical Decision Making, 21, 37–44. doi: 10.1177/0272989X0102100105
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lovie, P. (1978). Teaching intuitive statistics II. aiding the estimation of standard deviations. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 9, 213–219. doi: 10.1080/0020739780090210
   Google Scholar
• Lovie, P. & Lovie, A. D. (1976). Teaching intuitive statistics i: Estimating means and variances. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 7, 29–39. doi: 10.1080/0020739760070104
   Google Scholar
• Nilsson, H., Winman, A., Juslin, P., & Hansson, G. (2009). Linda is not a bearded lady: Configural weighting and adding as the cause of extension errors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 517–534. doi: 10.1037/a0017351
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nisbett, R. E., Krantz, D. H., Jepson, C., & Kunda, Z. (1983). The use of statistical heuristics in everyday inductive reasoning. Psychological Review, 90, 339–363. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.90.4.339
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nisbett, R. E., & Kunda, Z. (1985). Perception of social distributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 297–311. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.48.2.297
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Obrecht, N. A., Chapman, G. B., & Gelman, R. (2007). Intuitive t-tests: Lay use of statistical information. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 1147–1152. doi: 10.3758/BF03193104
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Obrecht, N. A. & Chesney, D. L. (2013). Sample representativeness affects whether judgments are influenced by base rate or sample size. Acta Psychologica, 142, 370–382. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.01.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, E., Slovic, P., Västfjäll, D., & Mertz, C. K. (2008). Intuitive numbers guide decisions. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 619–635.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, E., Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Mazzocco, K., & Dickert, S. (2006). Numeracy and decision making. Psychological Science, 17, 407–413. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01720.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips, L. D. & Edwards, W. (1966). Conservatism in a simple probability inference task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72, 346–354. doi: 10.1037/h0023653
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pollard, P. (1984). Intuitive judgments of proportions, means, and variances: A review. Current Psychology, 3, 5–18. doi: 10.1007/BF02686528
   Google Scholar
• Sedlmeier, P. (1998). The distribution matters: Two types of sample-size tasks. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11, 281–301. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(1998120)11:4<281::AID-BDM302>3.0.CO;2-U
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sedlmeier, P. & Gigerenzer, G. (1997). Intuitions about sample size: The empirical law of large numbers. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10, 33–51. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199703)10:1<33::AID-BDM244>3.0.CO;2-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart, N., Chater, N., & Brown, G. D. A. (2006). Decision by sampling. Cognitive Psychology, 53, 1–26. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.10.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, R. P., Dougherty, M. R. P., Sprenger, A. M., & Harbison, J. I. (2008). Diagnostic hypothesis generation and human judgment. Psychological Review, 115, 155–185. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.115.1.155
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vul, W., Goodman, N. D., Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2009). One and done? optimal decisions from very few samples. In N. A. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 66–72). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Xu, F. & Denison, S. (2009). Statistical inference and sensitivity to sampling in 11-month-old infants. Cognition, 112, 97–104. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.04.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, F. & Garcia, V. (2008). Intuitive statistics by 8-month-old infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 5012–5015. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0704450105
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zacks, R. T. & Hasher, L. (2002). Frequency processing: A twenty-five year perspective. In P. Sedlmeier & T. Betsch (Eds.), ETC. frequency processing and cognition (pp. 21–36). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar