People often overestimate probabilities of conjunctive events. The authors explored whether the accuracy of conjunctive probability estimates can be improved by increased experience with relevant constituent events and by using memory aids. The first experiment showed that increased experience with constituent events increased the correlation between the estimated and the objective conjunctive probabilities, but that it did not reduce overestimation of conjunctive probabilities. The second experiment showed that reducing cognitive load with memory aids for the constituent probabilities led to improved estimates of the conjunctive probabilities and to decreased overestimation of conjunctive probabilities. To explain the cognitive process underlying people's probability estimates, the configural weighted average model was tested against the normative multiplicative model. The configural weighted average model generates conjunctive probabilities that systematically overestimate objective probabilities although the generated probabilities still correlate strongly with the objective probabilities. For the majority of participants this model was better than the multiplicative model in predicting the probability estimates. However, when memory aids were provided, the predictive accuracy of the multiplicative model increased. In sum, memory tools can improve people's conjunctive probability estimates.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 March 2013.
All research outputs
#20,184,694
of 22,699,621 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#23,812
of 29,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,720
of 280,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#851
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,699,621 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,454 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 280,695 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
