Over the weekend, many of you participated in my little psychology experiment for a course. Before I go into it, I just want to give a shout out to all those that responded, which was way more than I had expected. Even the couple of you that gave non-sense answers >_>.....your effort is duly noted.
So what was the mumbojumbo about? Well for anyone that didn't do the survey, you can give it a try here before reading on. The complete write-up is here, it's a bit tongue-in-cheek because I thought this whole project was a waste of time, so it might be an enjoyable read, though it's probably easier to just read the summary that I'm about to write.
The experiment was an adaptation of a study done around 30 years ago. The original question that was posed to participants was as follows:
Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations.
Which is more probable?
1. Linda is a bank teller.
2. Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement
Surprisingly (or not), the original finding was that way more people chose the second, the conjunction of the two probabilities, as more likely than the first, henceforth dubbed the conjunction fallacy. To see why option 2 is NOT more likely, consider that 2 is a subset of 1, and for 2 to occur, 1 must also occur, hence 1 will always be equally or more likely than 2. Formally put, the probability of two events P(A,B), will always be less than the probability of its constituents: P(A,B) < P(A), P(B).
Half of you that have done the survey and is currently reading is probably thinking to yourself, "well shit", because that's how many of you screwed this up, 50%. Despite what I thought about the project, I DID think that more of my sample population would do better, since most of my Facebook associates are university grads and probably have a degree in a STEM field. Worry not though. In the past 30 years, this experiment has been done to death, with different manipulations to control for different things, and it has even been done with statistical experts, i.e. grad students, statisticians, etc, to no (or very little) avail: the conjunction effect remains. And people have had all sorts of explanations for this, the most popular one being that option 2 was more "representative" of Linda than option 1, hence it seems more likely to us. To take it a step further, the fathers of this experiment, Kahneman & Tversky, postulated two systems of human reasoning. System 1 is fast and imprecise, and uses "heuristics" to make quick judgements in the real-world, and system 2 is more logical and follows formal mathematical steps. I'm not really doing it justice, neither am I trying to, go read Wikipedia if you're interested. My personal opinion is that a psychological theory already has limited credibility if it's supported only by behavioral experiments, but I'm just a grad student and this guy has a Nobel Prize in Economics, so what the hell do I know? In any case, this phenomenon is probably real, it just depends on how you explain it.
My experiment, though, was not to reproduce the findings in a modern world. As much as I would have liked to coast on the assignment, this class actually has a letter grade. No, I had a hypothesis that unfortunately took all week for me to conjure up, and it was this:
What if you inserted a third statement, one that was a lot closer in probability to the constituent (option 1). Would the difficulty in ranking those two options then jumpstart your system 2, which then carries over to your judgement of the conjunction option? In other words, your system 1 (heuristics) operates in a large scale regime, and is only able to make decisions up to a certain limited resolution. If you have two choices that appear too similar heuristically, you might be forced to activate your formal statistical system, which really separates fine-grained things. It's like comparing whether or not you want to eat out, and whether you want to eat pizza or burgers for lunch, and the latter is SO MUCH HARDER. In comparison, an unrelated statement, or one that was much farther away in probability, would not result in activation of your system 2. I drew a nice little picture to outline this:
I like how the red squiggly lines are so bait. Yeah I screenshot this from Word, sue me. Go read the PDF if you're not here for the humor. Carrying on, so the prediction would be, in the experimental condition (the close condition), people would display less conjunction fallacy, since system 2 was activated and carried over. Conversely, people in the control condition (the far condition) would do worse, because it was so easy to rank the additional statement that no extra thought was given. So I retrofitted the problem (Linda is now a consultant rather than a banker because times are hard and girls gotta get paid), and added an additional, different, option. The control option was "Linda graduated from college/university", which she obviously did, because she majored in philosophy. Luckily, most of you got this. The experimental option was "Linda is a consultant and works more than 40 hours a week." Confession time: I had originally intended the experimental option to be MUCH closer in likelihood to the constituent (Linda is a consultant), because I thought it was common knowledge that consultants work 50-60 hours minimum. That's actually why I put MANAGEMENT consultant, because they're usually the crazy people. But apparently this was NOT common knowledge, probably because not everyone that answered tried applying for a consulting job. I digress. Luckily, this additional one ended up being much closer to the conjunction option, i.e. 50% of the people ranked "Linda is consultant and works more than 40 hours" higher in likelihood than "Linda is consultant and activist", and vice versa. Go to end of the PDF to see the full ranking tally.
Well, what was the main finding?
What are the 3 bars? They represent the percentage of people that correctly ranked the constituent to be more likely than the conjunction, i.e. P(Linda is consultant) > P(Linda is consultant AND something else). How these were calculated was basically, ignoring the third option, to see if the constituent was ranked higher than the conjunction. And in the case of the experimental condition, there were two conjunction options, hence two blue bars.
The red bar is the result from the control condition, where the "something else" is "activist". The middle blue bar is the same "something else" but in the experimental condition, and this is really where the money is at. Remember that the hypothesis was that people exposed to the more difficult (closer) choices would use their system 2 and thus do better on this task? Well they did, by a whooping 6%. I'll be honest with you, I don't even know how to put error bars on a statistic like this, what's my measurement error? What's my variance if I had one trial. lol. No, you don't need to remind me how shoddy this science is, though I'd be happy to hear about it, because I may or may not make such mistakes on actual science, whenever it is that I get to do that. Besides, blame yourselves for not participating enough, I COULD have had statistical significance. In any case, whereas any normal person sees this and says "this really doesn't seem like anything", I will go the scientist way and say, "this preliminary result warrants further investigation, preferably with money for fancy brain technology." The one good thing was that, at least the exact same percentage ranked the OTHER conjunction as more likely, so it counts as like a second trial, if you squint a little.
The takeaway? Half of you suck at statistics. Either that, or you knew what I was looking for and cooperated (subconsciously, which is a real thing), in which case, d'awww :'). Okay really though, don't feel bad if you got it wrong, this is just how you evolved to adapt to the environment around you. If you made the statistically correct choice all the time, yeah your life would be more "correct", but you'd spend 200% more time doing literally any little thing. This is where the 80-20 rule comes in, otherwise known as "fuck it I'll just wing it". The best part of this is what some of you wrote for the justification, because it's scary how well some people justified their wrong answer, like it almost makes you feel stupid for thinking statistically. Full data set is here if anybody's interested. Also it was funny because even though the responses are anonymous, I could pretty much tell who's writing what, especially things like "too lazy".
Once again, a big thank you to everyone that participated and contributed meaningfully. As much as I thought this to be a pointless waste of time, it was fun to engage people I know in this shoddy science, which by the way is NOT what I do professionally. So hopefully the next time one of you gets involved with my experiments, it will be some really cool shit, or maybe I'll just need to borrow your brain, or something. As always, comments and suggestions are very welcome, about the writing or the science, or if you just have beef with experimental psychology, then we can have a drink and complain all about it.