Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHadjichristidis, C
dc.contributor.authorGeipel, J
dc.contributor.authorPillai, KG
dc.date.accessioned2022-01-10T14:14:42Z
dc.date.issued2021-11-09
dc.date.updated2022-01-10T11:15:59Z
dc.description.abstractPrevious research has shown that the judged probability of an event depends on whether its description mentions examples (“What is the probability that a randomly chosen Italian businessman will travel during the next month to Warsaw, Budapest, Prague or some other European city?”) or does not mention examples (“What is the probability that a randomly chosen Italian businessman will travel during the next month to a European city?”). Here, we examined descriptions that mention examples and manipulated whether these are relatively similar (e.g., Warsaw, Budapest, Prague) or diverse (e.g., Warsaw, Marseilles, Helsinki). Four experiments (N = 1112) revealed a diversity effect: Overall, descriptions with diverse examples received higher probability judgments than descriptions with similar examples. We discuss several possible mechanisms for this effect, such as that descriptions with diverse examples prompt fuller representations of the target category or that the effect is driven by a representativeness or proximity heuristic.en_GB
dc.format.extent1-30
dc.identifier.citationPublished online 9 November 2021en_GB
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2021.2000494
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/128340
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherRoutledgeen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://osf.io/5smq8/?view_only=776ca41fecdd4a2191c442e531f488eden_GB
dc.rights.embargoreasonUnder embargo until 9 November 2022 in compliance with publisher policyen_GB
dc.rights© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This version is made available under the CC-BY-NC 4.0 license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/  en_GB
dc.subjectProbability judgmenten_GB
dc.subjectsupport theoryen_GB
dc.subjectdiversityen_GB
dc.subjectcoverageen_GB
dc.subjectrepresentativeness heuristicen_GB
dc.subjectproximity heuristicen_GB
dc.titleDiversity effects in subjective probability judgmenten_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2022-01-10T14:14:42Z
dc.identifier.issn1354-6783
dc.descriptionThis is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Routledge via the DOI in this recorden_GB
dc.identifier.eissn1464-0708
dc.identifier.journalThinking and Reasoningen_GB
dc.relation.ispartofThinking & Reasoning
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/  en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2021-10-23
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2021-11-09
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2022-01-10T14:07:42Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.panelCen_GB
refterms.dateFirstOnline2021-11-09


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This version is made available under the CC-BY-NC 4.0 license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/  
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This version is made available under the CC-BY-NC 4.0 license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/