Anomalies in the detection of change: When changes in sample size are mistaken for changes in proportions

Klaus Fiedler*, Yaakov Kareev, Judith Avrahami, Susanne Beier, Florian Kutzner, Mandy Hütter

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

13 Scopus citations

Abstract

Detecting changes, in performance, sales, markets, risks, social relations, or public opinions, constitutes an important adaptive function. In a sequential paradigm devised to investigate detection of change, every trial provides a sample of binary outcomes (e.g., correct vs. incorrect student responses). Participants have to decide whether the proportion of a focal feature (e.g., correct responses) in the population from which the sample is drawn has decreased, remained constant, or increased. Strong and persistent anomalies in change detection arise when changes in proportional quantities vary orthogonally to changes in absolute sample size. Proportional increases are readily detected and nonchanges are erroneously perceived as increases when absolute sample size increases. Conversely, decreasing sample size facilitates the correct detection of proportional decreases and the erroneous perception of nonchanges as decreases. These anomalies are however confined to experienced samples of elementary raw events from which proportions have to be inferred inductively. They disappear when sample proportions are described as percentages in a normalized probability format. To explain these challenging findings, it is essential to understand the inductive-learning constraints imposed on decisions from experience.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)143-161
Number of pages19
JournalMemory and Cognition
Volume44
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Jan 2016

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2015, Psychonomic Society, Inc.

Keywords

  • Decision making
  • Inductive reasoning
  • Judgment
  • Memory

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Anomalies in the detection of change: When changes in sample size are mistaken for changes in proportions'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this