↓ Skip to main content

Toward an ecological analysis of Bayesian inferences: how task characteristics influence responses

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Toward an ecological analysis of Bayesian inferences: how task characteristics influence responses
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00939
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sebastian Hafenbrädl, Ulrich Hoffrage

Abstract

In research on Bayesian inferences, the specific tasks, with their narratives and characteristics, are typically seen as exchangeable vehicles that merely transport the structure of the problem to research participants. In the present paper, we explore whether, and possibly how, task characteristics that are usually ignored influence participants' responses in these tasks. We focus on both quantitative dimensions of the tasks, such as their base rates, hit rates, and false-alarm rates, as well as qualitative characteristics, such as whether the task involves a norm violation or not, whether the stakes are high or low, and whether the focus is on the individual case or on the numbers. Using a data set of 19 different tasks presented to 500 different participants who provided a total of 1,773 responses, we analyze these responses in two ways: first, on the level of the numerical estimates themselves, and second, on the level of various response strategies, Bayesian and non-Bayesian, that might have produced the estimates. We identified various contingencies, and most of the task characteristics had an influence on participants' responses. Typically, this influence has been stronger when the numerical information in the tasks was presented in terms of probabilities or percentages, compared to natural frequencies - and this effect cannot be fully explained by a higher proportion of Bayesian responses when natural frequencies were used. One characteristic that did not seem to influence participants' response strategy was the numerical value of the Bayesian solution itself. Our exploratory study is a first step toward an ecological analysis of Bayesian inferences, and highlights new avenues for future research.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 4%
Netherlands 1 4%
Italy 1 4%
Germany 1 4%
Unknown 19 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 22%
Student > Bachelor 4 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 17%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 2 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 74%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Engineering 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 August 2015.
All research outputs
#14,819,430
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,087
of 29,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,368
of 264,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#361
of 547 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,769 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,230 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 547 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.