Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 27, 2026
12:10
Assessment of Mouse Judgment Bias through an Olfactory Digging Task
Published on: March 4, 2022
Judge for yourself: reply to Evans and Buehner (2011)
1School of Education and The Center for the Study of Rationality, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91905, Israel. kareev@vms.huji.ac.il
Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition
|November 16, 2011
Summary
Decision quality does not always improve with larger information samples, contrary to claims. This rebuttal clarifies that descriptive models and data interpretation support the original findings on sample size effects in decision-making.
Area of Science:
- Cognitive Psychology
- Decision Science
- Information Processing
Background:
- A previous study concluded that decision quality does not consistently increase with information sample size.
- This conclusion was contested by Evans and Buehner, who raised three main objections regarding the decision model's validity, data interpretation, and the relationship between sample size and data clarity.
Purpose of the Study:
- To rebut the claims made by Evans and Buehner regarding the Fiedler and Kareev (2006) study.
- To defend the descriptive validity of the proposed decision model.
- To clarify the interpretation of data concerning sample size and decision quality.
Main Methods:
- Re-evaluation of the original study's data and model.
- Addressing Evans and Buehner's specific claims point-by-point.
- Analyzing the relationship between sample size and data clarity in decision-making.
Main Results:
- The rebuttal refutes Evans and Buehner's claims, asserting the descriptive, not normative, correctness of the model.
- Earlier data are shown to be consistent with the Fiedler and Kareev model.
- The authors demonstrate that their data support their original conclusion, attributing Evans and Buehner's differing interpretation to their selective dismissal of data.
- It is further argued that small samples are indeed likely to yield clear data.
Conclusions:
- The original conclusion that decision quality does not always increase with information sample size is upheld.
- Evans and Buehner's criticisms are addressed and refuted.
- The study reinforces the understanding of how sample size influences decision-making and data clarity.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
01:23Criticisms of the Evolutionary Perspective
In a study where individuals posing as strangers offered compliments and proposed casual sex to students, the responses differed significantly based on gender. Not a single woman accepted the proposal, while 70% of the men agreed. This outcome provides a useful scenario to explore through the lens of evolutionary psychology and social learning theory, highlighting the diverse perspectives on human sexual behaviors.
Evolutionary psychology provides one explanation for these findings, suggesting...
Evolutionary psychology provides one explanation for these findings, suggesting...
01:20Evolutionary Psychology
Evolutionary psychology explores the origins of human behavior and mental processes by framing them within the context of natural selection, a theory famously propounded by Charles Darwin. This field asserts that many behaviors common across human societies — ranging from instinctive fear reactions to complex social interactions — arose as evolutionary adaptations. These adaptations enhanced the survival and reproductive success of our ancestors, thereby becoming embedded in the human psyche...
01:17Hypothesis: Accept or Fail to Reject?
The outcome of any hypothesis testing leads to rejecting or not rejecting the null hypothesis. This decision is taken based on the analysis of the data, an appropriate test statistic, an appropriate confidence level, the critical values, and P-values. However, when the evidence suggests that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected, is it right to say, 'Accept' the null hypothesis?
There are two ways to indicate that the null hypothesis is not rejected. 'Accept' the null hypothesis and 'fail to...
There are two ways to indicate that the null hypothesis is not rejected. 'Accept' the null hypothesis and 'fail to...
01:31Confirmation Biases
The confirmation bias is the tendency to focus on information that confirms our existing beliefs and ignore information that is inconsistent with our expectations. For example, if you think that your professor is not very nice, you notice all of the instances of rude behavior exhibited by the professor while ignoring the countless pleasant interactions he is involved in on a daily basis. Have you ever fallen prey to the confirmation bias, either as the source or target of such bias?
01:52Regression Toward the Mean
Regression toward the mean (“RTM”) is a phenomenon in which extremely high or low values—for example, and individual’s blood pressure at a particular moment—appear closer to a group’s average upon remeasuring. Although this statistical peculiarity is the result of random error and chance, it has been problematic across various medical, scientific, financial and psychological applications. In particular, RTM, if not taken into account, can interfere when researchers try to extrapolate results...
01:20Lazarus's Cognitive Appraisal Theory
Cognitive psychologist Richard Lazarus proposed the cognitive-mediational theory of emotions, which emphasizes how individuals' assessments of stressors significantly affect their experience of stress. According to Lazarus, the stress response is determined by a two-step appraisal process: primary appraisal and secondary appraisal. These cognitive appraisals help individuals evaluate the potential impact of a stressor and determine the adequacy of their coping resources.
Primary Appraisal:...
Primary Appraisal:...