↓ Skip to main content

Natural frequencies facilitate diagnostic inferences of managers

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Natural frequencies facilitate diagnostic inferences of managers
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00642
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ulrich Hoffrage, Sebastian Hafenbrädl, Cyril Bouquet

Abstract

In Bayesian inference tasks, information about base rates as well as hit rate and false-alarm rate needs to be integrated according to Bayes' rule after the result of a diagnostic test became known. Numerous studies have found that presenting information in a Bayesian inference task in terms of natural frequencies leads to better performance compared to variants with information presented in terms of probabilities or percentages. Natural frequencies are the tallies in a natural sample in which hit rate and false-alarm rate are not normalized with respect to base rates. The present research replicates the beneficial effect of natural frequencies with four tasks from the domain of management, and with management students as well as experienced executives as participants. The percentage of Bayesian responses was almost twice as high when information was presented in natural frequencies compared to a presentation in terms of percentages. In contrast to most tasks previously studied, the majority of numerical responses were lower than the Bayesian solutions. Having heard of Bayes' rule prior to the study did not affect Bayesian performance. An implication of our work is that textbooks explaining Bayes' rule should teach how to represent information in terms of natural frequencies instead of how to plug probabilities or percentages into a formula.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 3%
Hungary 1 3%
Italy 1 3%
Germany 1 3%
Unknown 32 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 28%
Student > Master 7 19%
Researcher 5 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 28%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 9 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 November 2020.
All research outputs
#14,967,526
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,282
of 30,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,739
of 264,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#367
of 535 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,282 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,271 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 535 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.