No Category Size Bias in Probability Judgments (#202)
How to Cite this Report
APA StyleHannah Perfecto, Leif D. Nelson. No Category Size Bias in Probability Judgments. (2014, October 01). Retrieved 01:06, May 01, 2017 from http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjAy
MLA Style"No Category Size Bias in Probability Judgments" Hannah Perfecto, Leif D. Nelson. 01 Oct 2014 16:50 01 May 2017, 01:06 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjAy>
MHRA Style'No Category Size Bias in Probability Judgments', Hannah Perfecto, Leif D. Nelson, , 01 October 2014 16:50 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjAy> [accessed 01 May 2017]
Chicago Style"No Category Size Bias in Probability Judgments", Hannah Perfecto, Leif D. Nelson, , http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjAy (accessed May 01, 2017)
CBE/CSE StyleNo Category Size Bias in Probability Judgments [Internet]. Hannah Perfecto, Leif D. Nelson; 2014 Oct 01, 16:50 [cited 2017 May 01]. Available from: http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjAy
|Reference to Original Report of Finding||Isaac, M. S., & Brough, A. R. (2014). Judging a Part by the Size of Its Whole: The Category Size Bias in Probability Judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(2), 310-325.|
|Title||No Category Size Bias in Probability Judgments|
|If the original article contained multiple experiments, which one did you attempt to replicate? e.g., you might respond 'Study 1' or 'Experiment 4'.||Study 1|
|Link to PDF of Original Report||View Article|
|Brief Statement of Original Result||Participants believed that a specific ball was more likely to be drawn from an urn if the ball came from a large category (e.g. this ball, along with the majority were grey) versus a small category (e.g. this ball was one of the few greys).|
|Type of Replication Attempted||Highly Direct Replication|
|Result Type||Failure to Replicate|
|Difference?||Same Direction, .475|
|Number of Subjects||271|
|Number of Subjects in Original Study||223|
|Year in which Replication Attempt was Made||2014|
|Name of Investigators (Real Names Required)||Hannah Perfecto, Leif D. Nelson|
|Detailed Description of Method/Results||
The original authors generously provided their materials in an appendix, which we employed in our replication (see below for one exception, in the elicitation of the estimate). See the included PDF for said materials.|
We failed to replicate the original authors' effect of category size, with probability estimates for drawing ball #8 not differing significantly whether ball #8 came from a large (M=9.9%) or small (M=8.8%) category, t(242)=.715, p=.475.
We also included two additional cells to test whether the original phrasing of the question could have led participants to misconstrue the question as asking about the probability of drawing *any* grey ball, which could cause their effect.
We accomplished this by asking half of all participants first the probability of the (small or large) category and second, on a separate page, the probability of the specific case. This order was reversed for the other half of participants, such that the first question asked was a direct replication of the original study.
Our goal was to attenuate the original effect through this added factor of phrasing. However, since the original effect failed to emerge, we could not do so, F(1, 511)=.63, p=.428.
The full write-up of this 2x2 design is included as a PDF. Any parties interested in the raw data may contact H.P.
Figure 1 plots both the original study's means as well as our replication's. Figure 2 shows that our replication, however, was inconclusive, based on sample and effect sizes (Simonsohn, 2013).
|Any Known Methodological Differences |
(between original and present study)?
|We did modify the elicitation of the dependent variable to minimize misunderstanding: they asked participants to report their probabilities as a percentage, where as we ask our participants to report their probabilities as the number of times the ball is drawn out of 100 draws. Beyond this, we do not know of any methodological differences between the two studies.|
|Email of Investigator|
|Name of individuals who |
actually carried out the project
|H.P. posted the study online to collect subjects. H.P. and L.D.N. analyzed the data.|
|Location of Project||Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley|
|Characteristics of Subjects |
(subject pool, paid, etc.)
|Adults tested through internet|
Amazon Mechanical Turk
|Where did these subjects reside?||United States|
|Was this a Class Project?||No|
|Further Details of Results as pdf||
|Email of Original Investigator|
|Quantitive Information||Using the analysis suggested by Simonsohn (2013 - http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2259879 ), which incorporates sample size and effect size, our replication was inconclusive.|
|I have complied with ethical standards for experimentation on human beings and, if necessary, have obtained appropriate permission from an Institutional Review Board or other oversight group.|
|TAG: Attention TAG: JDM TAG: Language TAG: Learning TAG: Memory TAG: Perception TAG: Performance TAG: Problem Solving TAG: Social Cognition TAG: Social Psychology TAG: Thinking|