IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/76042.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Category effects on stimulus estimation: Shifting and skewed frequency distributions - A reexamination

Author

Listed:
  • Duffy, Sean
  • Smith, John

Abstract

Duffy, Huttenlocher, Hedges, and Crawford (2010) [Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(2), 224-230] report on experiments where participants estimate the lengths of lines. These studies were designed to test the Category Adjustment Model (CAM), a Bayesian model of judgments. CAM predicts that there will exist a bias toward the running mean of the lines and that judgments will not be differentially affected by recent stimuli. The authors report that their analysis provides evidence consistent with CAM. We reexamine their data. First, we attempt to replicate their analysis and we obtain different results. Second, we conduct a different statistical analysis. We find significant recency effects and we identify several specifications where the running mean is not significantly related to judgment. Third, we conduct a test of an auxiliary prediction of CAM: that the bias towards the mean will increase with exposure to the distribution. We do not find such a relationship. Fourth, we produce a simulated dataset that is consistent with CAM and our methods correctly identify it as consistent with CAM. We conclude that the Duffy et al. (2010) dataset is not consistent with CAM. We also discuss how conventions in psychology do not sufficiently reduce the likelihood of these mistakes in future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Duffy, Sean & Smith, John, 2017. "Category effects on stimulus estimation: Shifting and skewed frequency distributions - A reexamination," MPRA Paper 76042, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:76042
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/76042/1/MPRA_paper_76042.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/81254/1/MPRA_paper_81254.pdf
    File Function: revised version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sarah R., Allred & L. Elizabeth, Crawford & Sean, Duffy & John, Smith, 2015. "Working memory and spatial judgments: Cognitive load increases the central tendency bias," MPRA Paper 63520, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sean Duffy & John Smith, 2020. "On the category adjustment model: another look at Huttenlocher, Hedges, and Vevea (2000)," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 19(1), pages 163-193, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sean Duffy & John Smith, 2020. "On the category adjustment model: another look at Huttenlocher, Hedges, and Vevea (2000)," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 19(1), pages 163-193, June.
    2. Deck, Cary & Jahedi, Salar, 2015. "The effect of cognitive load on economic decision making: A survey and new experiments," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 97-119.
    3. Duffy, Sean & Naddeo, JJ & Owens, David & Smith, John, 2016. "Cognitive load and mixed strategies: On brains and minimax," MPRA Paper 71878, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Allred, Sarah & Duffy, Sean & Smith, John, 2016. "Cognitive load and strategic sophistication," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 162-178.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    judgment; memory; Category Adjustment Model; central tendency bias; recency effects; Bayesian judgments;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:76042. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.