Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-x2lbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-10T04:50:55.600Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sampling complex social and behavioral phenomena

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2024

Henrik Olsson Open the ORCID record for Henrik Olsson [Opens in a new window]  and
Mirta Galesic Open the ORCID record for Mirta Galesic [Opens in a new window]
Henrik Olsson
Affiliation:
Complexity Science Hub, Vienna, Austria Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM, USA olsson@santafe.edu; galesic@santafe.edu https://www.santafe.edu/people/profile/henrik-olsson; https://www.santafe.edu/people/profile/mirta-galesic
Mirta Galesic*
Affiliation:
Complexity Science Hub, Vienna, Austria Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM, USA olsson@santafe.edu; galesic@santafe.edu https://www.santafe.edu/people/profile/henrik-olsson; https://www.santafe.edu/people/profile/mirta-galesic
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We comment on the limits of relying on prior literature when constructing the design space for an integrative experiment; the adaptive nature of social and behavioral phenomena and the implications for the use of theory and modeling when constructing the design space; and on the challenges of measuring random errors and lab-related biases in measurement without replication.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 47 , 2024 , e55
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Breznau, N., Rinke, E. M., Wuttke, A., Nguyen, H. H., Adem, M., Adriaans, J., … Van Assche, J. (2022). Observing many researchers using the same data and hypothesis reveals a hidden universe of uncertainty. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119, e2203150119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brunswik, E. (1944). Distal focussing of perception: Size-constancy in a representative sample of situations. Psychological Monographs, 56, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawes, R. M. (1989). Statistical criteria for establishing a truly false consensus effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galesic, M., Olsson, H., & Rieskamp, J. (2018). A sampling model of social judgment. Psychological Review, 125, 363–390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gigerenzer, G., Hoffrage, U., & Kleinbölting, H. (1991). Probabilistic mental models: A Brunswikian theory of confidence. Psychological Review, 98, 506–528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E. U., & Erev, I. (2004). Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychological Science, 15, 534–539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Juslin, P. (1994). The overconfidence phenomenon as a consequence of informal experimenter-guided selection of almanac items. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57, 226–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juslin, P., Olsson, H., & Björkman, M. (1997). Brunswikian and Thurstonian origins of bias in probability assessment: On the origin and nature of stochastic components of judgment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10, 189–209.3.0.CO;2-4>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juslin, P., Winman, A., & Olsson, H. (2000). Naive empiricism and dogmatism in confidence research: A critical examination of the hard-easy effect. Psychological Review, 107, 384–396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krueger, J. I., & Funder, D. C. (2004). Towards a balanced social psychology: Causes, consequences, and cures for the problem-seeking approach to social behavior and cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 313–327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, E., Karimi, F., Wagner, C., Jo, H.-H., Strohmaier, M., & Galesic, M. (2019). Homophily and minority-group size explain perception biases in social networks. Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 1078–1087.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lejarraga, T., & Hertwig, R. (2021). How experimental methods shaped views on human competence and rationality. Psychological Bulletin, 147(6), 535–564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lerman, K., Yan, X., & Wu, X. Z. (2016). The “majority illusion” in social networks. PLoS ONE, 11(2), e0147617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, D. U., Mergenthaler-Canseco, M., & Hertwig, R. (2018). A meta-analytic review of two modes of learning and the description-experience gap. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 140–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed