Seven (indeed, plus or minus two) and the detection of correlations.

Capacity limitations of working memory force people to rely on samples consisting of 7 +/- 2 items. The implications of these limitations for the early detection of correlations between binary variables were explored in a theoretical analysis of the sampling distribution of phi, the contingency coefficient. The analysis indicated that, for strong correlations (phi > .50), sample sizes of 7 +/- 2 are most likely to produce a sample correlation that is more extreme than that of the population. Another analysis then revealed that there is a similar cutoff point at which useful correlations (i.e., for which each variable is a valid predictor of the other) first outnumber correlations for which this is not the case. Capacity limitations are thus shown to maximize the chances for the early detection of strong and useful relations.

[1]  F. N. David.  Tables of the Correlation Coefficient. , 1938 .

[2]  W. E. Vinacke,et al.  The Psychology of Thinking. , 1952 .

[3]  G. A. Miller.  THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[4]  W. Hays.  Statistics for psychologists , 1963 .

[5]  A. Tversky,et al.  BELIEF IN THE LAW OF SMALL NUMBERS , 1971, Pediatrics.

[6]  R. Rescorla,et al.  A theory of Pavlovian conditioning : Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement , 1972 .

[7]  W. F. Prokasy,et al.  Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory. , 1972 .

[8]  H. Simon,et al.  Perception in chess , 1973 .

[9]  P. W. Frey,et al.  Inhibition and learning , 1973 .

[10]  N. Mackintosh.  A Theory of Attention: Variations in the Associability of Stimuli with Reinforcement , 1975 .

[11]  Janellen Huttenlocher,et al.  Why does memory span increase with age? , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[12]  L. Allan.  A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks , 1980 .

[13]  G Turkewitz,et al.  Limitations on input as a basis for neural organization and perceptual development: a preliminary theoretical statement. , 1982, Developmental psychobiology.

[14]  Lola L. Lopes.  Doing the impossible: A note on induction and the experience of randomness. , 1982 .

[15]  L. Alloy,et al.  Assessment of covariation by humans and animals: The joint influence of prior expectations and current situational information. , 1984 .

[16]  A. Neyman.  Bounded complexity justifies cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoners' dilemma , 1985 .

[17]  A. Houston,et al.  Optimal foraging and learning , 1985 .

[18]  A I Houston,et al.  Memory and the efficient use of information. , 1987, Journal of theoretical biology.

[19]  E. Newport.  Constraints on learning and their role in language acquisition: Studies of the acquisition of American sign language , 1988 .

[20]  H. Simon,et al.  Invariants of human behavior. , 1990, Annual review of psychology.

[21]  Elissa L. Newport,et al.  Maturational Constraints on Language Learning , 1990, Cogn. Sci..

[22]  L A Real,et al.  Animal choice behavior and the evolution of cognitive architecture , 1991, Science.

[23]  M. Just,et al.  From the SelectedWorks of Marcel Adam Just 1992 A capacity theory of comprehension : Individual differences in working memory , 2017 .

[24]  L. Real.  Information Processing and the Evolutionary Ecology of Cognitive Architecture , 1992, The American Naturalist.

[25]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.

[26]  Yaakov Kareev,et al.  Not that bad after all : generation of random sequences , 1992 .

[27]  L. Allan.  Human contingency judgments: rule based or associative? , 1993, Psychological bulletin.

[28]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  Spatial working memory in humans as revealed by PET , 1993, Nature.

[29]  J. Elman.  Learning and development in neural networks: the importance of starting small , 1993, Cognition.

[30]  J. Roughgarden,et al.  The effect of memory length on the foraging behavior of a lizard , 1994 .

[31]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Long-term working memory. , 1995, Psychological review.

[32]  B. Peleg,et al.  Automata, matching and foraging behavior of bees , 1995 .

[33]  Y. Kareev.  Through a narrow window: working memory capacity and the detection of covariation , 1995, Cognition.

[34]  Yaakov Kareev,et al.  Positive bias in the perception of covariation. , 1995 .

[35]  J. Richardson,et al.  Working Memory and Human Cognition , 1996 .

[36]  M. Just,et al.  Brain Activation Modulated by Sentence Comprehension , 1996, Science.

[37]  Marcel Adam Just,et al.  The capacity theory of comprehension: new frontiers of evidence and arguments. , 1996 .

[38]  Edward Awh,et al.  Verbal and Spatial Working Memory in Humans , 1996 .

[39]  Cresswell,et al.  The Effects of a Limited Memory Capacity on Foraging Behavior , 1997, Theoretical population biology.

[40]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  Working Memory: A View from Neuroimaging , 1997, Cognitive Psychology.

[41]  Y. Kareev,et al.  Through a narrow window: Sample size and the perception of correlation , 1997 .

[42]  P. Cheng.  From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. , 1997 .

[43]  A. Rapoport,et al.  Randomization in individual choice behavior. , 1997 .

[44]  Robert B. Glassman,et al.  Human working memory capacity is 7 ± 2 in a radial maze with distracting interruption: possible implication for neural mechanisms of declarative and implicit long-term memory , 1998, Brain Research Bulletin.