Do people treat missing information adaptively when making inferences?
Abstract
When making inferences, people are often confronted with situations with incomplete information. Previous research has led to a mixed picture about how people react to missing information. Options include ignoring missing information, treating it as either positive or negative, using the average of past observations for replacement, or using the most frequent observation of the available information as a placeholder. The accuracy of these inference mechanisms depends on characteristics of the environment. When missing information is uniformly distributed, it is most accurate to treat it as the average, whereas when it is negatively correlated with the criterion to be judged, treating missing information as if it were negative is most accurate. Whether people treat missing information adaptively according to the environment was tested in two studies. The results show that participants were sensitive to how missing information was distributed in an environment and most frequently selected the mechanism that was most adaptive. From these results the authors conclude that reacting to missing information in different ways is an adaptive response to environmental characteristics.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Attempting to reduce the amount of TRI from existing or emerging platforms may backfire in terms of user perception.
“Second, attempting to reduce the amount of TRI from existing or emerging platforms may backfire in terms of user perception.”
From Digital Identity: The effect of trust and reputation information on user judgement in the Sharing Economy (2018) · cites this paper as [65]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 74 · Cited by 58
- Authors
- Garcia-Retamero, R., & Rieskamp, J.
- Affiliations
- Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany
- University of Basel (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Rieskamp, Jörg
- ORCID
- Rieskamp, Jörg
- Venue
- Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-10
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1991-2013
- ISSN
- 0033-555X (ISSN-L)
- 1747-0218
- 1747-0226
- OpenAlex
- W1973460005
- Cited by
- 58
- References
- 74
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 25
- FWCI
- 6.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
- Keywords
- missing information, inference, adaptive inference, incomplete information, environmental characteristics, judgment accuracy
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Concept Formation, Cues, Decision Making, Environment, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Psychological, Probability, Problem Solving, Information Storage and Retrieval, Young Adult
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