Are judgments of the positional frequencies of letters systematically biased due to availability? (1998)
Authors
Abstract
How do people estimate whether a particular letter is more frequent$\backslash$nin the 1st versus in a later position? The authors tested 2 precise$\backslash$nversions of the availability hypothesis, a hypothesis that assumes$\backslash$nthat frequency processing occurs on the level of the phonological$\backslash$nclasses of vowels and consonants, and the regressed-frequencies hypothesis,$\backslash$nwhich assumes monitoring of individual letters. Across 3 studies,$\backslash$nit was found that (a) judgments of whether a letter is more frequent$\backslash$nin the 1st or the 2nd position generally followed the actual proportions$\backslash$nand (b) the estimated relative frequencies in the 1st versus the$\backslash$n2nd position closely agreed with the actual rank ordering, except$\backslash$nfor an overestimation of low and underestimation of high values.$\backslash$nThese results favor the regressed-frequencies hypothesis and challenge$\backslash$nthe conclusions about frequency judgments in the heuristics and biases$\backslash$nliterature. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2008 APA, all rights reserved)$\backslash$n(journal abstract)
Bibliographic entry
Sedlmeier, P., Hertwig, R., & Gigerenzer, G. (1998). Are judgments of the positional frequencies of letters systematically biased due to availability? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 754-770. (Full text)