Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-z2ts4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T13:42:14.471Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Contingency inferences driven by base rates: Valid by sampling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

Florian Kutzner*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Heidelberg, Hauptstrasse 47–51, 69117, Heidelberg, Germany
Tobias Vogel
Affiliation:
Universität Mannheim
Peter Freytag
Affiliation:
Universität Heidelberg
Klaus Fiedler
Affiliation:
Universität Heidelberg
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fiedler et al. (2009), reviewed evidence for the utilization of a contingency inference strategy termed pseudocontingencies (PCs). In PCs, the more frequent levels (and, by implication, the less frequent levels) are assumed to be associated. PCs have been obtained using a wide range of task settings and dependent measures. Yet, the readiness with which decision makers rely on PCs is poorly understood. A computer simulation explored two potential sources of subjective validity of PCs. First, PCs are shown to perform above chance level when the task is to infer the sign of moderate to strong population contingencies from a sample of observations. Second, contingency inferences based on PCs and inferences based on cell frequencies are shown to partially agree across samples. Intriguingly, this criterion and convergent validity are by-products of random sampling error, highlighting the inductive nature of contingency inferences.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
The authors license this article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors [2011] This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Figure 0

Table 1 Example of a standard 2 × 2 contingency table

Figure 1

Table 2 Frequency tables for samples of n = 10 observations drawn from a population with a perfect contingency between the evenly distributed attributes mutation and disease

Figure 2

Table 3 Cell-frequency values in the 11 populations used in the simulation

Figure 3

Figure 1 Proportions of positive (+), zero (0) or negative (-) sign inferences of the population contingency derived from the PC and the AGG-model strategy are depicted as a function of population contingency and sample size. For each population contingency, estimates are based on 10,000 random samples generated by a Poisson process.

Figure 4

Figure 2 Differences in proportion of correct sign inferences of the AGG-model minus the PC strategy are shown as a function of population contingency and sample size. For each population contingency, estimates are based on 10,000 random samples generated by a Poisson process.

Figure 5

Figure 3 Average AGG-model values are depicted separately for samples with positive (squares) and negative (circles) PCs as a function of the contingency in the population and the sample size. The size of the symbols is proportional to the proportion of the samples in the 10,000 simulation runs per population contingency with the values equal to the proportions of samples indicating a positive PC.

Figure 6

Figure 4 Proportions of positive (+), zero (0) or negative (-) sign inferences of the population contingency derived from the PC strategy. Both variables have rare attribute levels at a ratio of 3 to 1 with the rarest combination accounting for 6%–25% of the cases, depending on the population’s contingency. For each population contingency, estimates are based on 10,000 samples generated by a Poisson process. For the criterion variable the process was random. For the predictor variable the rare event was oversampled in a compensatory way by a factor 3.