The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reliance on small samples, the wavy recency effect, and similarity-based learning.
Abstract
Many behavioral phenomena, including underweighting of rare events and probability matching, can be the product of a tendency to rely on small samples of experiences. Why would small samples be used, and which experiences are likely to be included in these samples? Previous studies suggest that a cognitively efficient reliance on the most recent experiences can be very effective. We explore a very different and more cognitively demanding process explaining the tendency to rely on small samples: exploitation of environmental regularities. The first part of our study shows that across wide classes of dynamic binary choice environments, focusing only on experiences that followed the same sequence of outcomes preceding the current task is more effective than focusing on the most recent experiences. The second part of our study examines the psychological significance of these sequence-based rules. It shows that these tractable rules reproduce well-known indications of sensitivity to sequences and predict a nontrivial wavy recency effect of rare events. Analysis of published data supports this wavy recency prediction, but suggests an even wavier effect than these sequence-based rules predict. This pattern, and the main behavioral phenomena documented in basic decisions from experience and probability learning tasks, can be captured with a similarity-based model assuming that people follow sequences of outcomes most of the time but sometimes respond to trends. We conclude with theoretical notes on similarity-based learning.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Beware of samples! A cognitive-ecological sampling approach to judgment biases.
Fiedler, K. (2000) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037//0033-295x.107.4.659 · Cited by 482
Context, learning, and extinction
Gershman, S. J., Blei, D. M., & Niv, Y. (2010) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0017808 · Cited by 386
The smart potential behind probability matching
Gaissmaier, W., & Schooler, L. J. (2008) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.09.007 · Cited by 223
Cited by
Maximization, learning, and economic behavior
Erev, I., & Roth, A. E. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1402846111 · Cited by 155
Self-citationSchulze, C., & Hertwig, R. (2021) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104580 · Cited by 36
Episodic retrieval for model-based evaluation in sequential decision tasks.
Zhou, C. Y., Talmi, D., Daw, N. D., & Mattar, M. G. (2025) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000505 · Cited by 21
Predictive Representations: Building Blocks of Intelligence
Carvalho, W., Tomov, M. S., de Cothi, W., Barry, C., & Gershman, S. J. (2024) · Neural Computation · doi:10.1162/neco_a_01705 · Cited by 15
Over and under commitment to a course of action in decisions from experience.
Cohen, D., & Erev, I. (2021) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0001066 · Cited by 9
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Plonsky, O., Teodorescu, K., & Erev, I.
- Venue
- Psychological Review
- Published
- 2015-10
- Volume
- 122
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 621-647
- ISSN
- 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1471
- OpenAlex
- W2466200757
- Cited by
- 162
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 7.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reliance on small samples, the wavy recency effect, and similarity-based learning. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/a0039413
- The paper
- Plonsky, O., Teodorescu, K., & Erev, I. (2015). Reliance on small samples, the wavy recency effect, and similarity-based learning. Psychological Review. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039413
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.