ArticleRoyal Society open science2022
Can we shift belief in the 'Law of Small Numbers'?
Article in Royal Society open science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Category learning in autistic individuals: A meta-analysis.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2024Pooled it
- Perspectives on scientific error.Royal Society open science · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
'Sample size neglect' is a tendency to underestimate how the variability of mean estimates changes with sample size. We studied 100 participants, from science or social science backgrounds, to test whether a training task showing different-sized samples of data points (the 'beeswarm' task) can help overcome this bias. Ability to judge if two samples came from the same population improved with training, and 38% of participants reported that they had learned to wait for larger samples before making a response. Before and after training, participants completed a 12-item estimation quiz, including items testing sample size neglect (S-items). Bonus payments were given for correct responses. The quiz confirmed sample size neglect: 20% of participants scored zero on S-items, and only two participants achieved more than 4/6 items correct. Performance on the quiz did not improve after training, regardless of how much learning had occurred on the beeswarm task. Error patterns on the quiz were generally consistent with expectation, though there were some intriguing exceptions that could not readily be explained by sample size neglect. We suggest that training with simulated data might need to be accompanied by explicit instruction to be effective in counteracting sample size neglect more generally.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.