Suppose, somebody has to estimate the likelihood of one of the following events (or has to estimate which event is more likely):
- A coin is tossed six times and each time the result is heads. (combined)
- A 64-sided die is rolled and the result is 1. (uncombined)
Since 2⁶ = 64, both events are obviously equiprobable. However, somebody with less statistical prowess might think otherwise. Also, in a more complex scenario (e.g., in a board game) at least one of the probabilities may be impossible to calculate for almost anybody (at least in a short time).
I am interested in studies that investigate, whether combined probabilities (1) are estimated to be higher, lower or equal than uncombined probabilities (2), even if the actual probabilities are identical.
I am also interested in studies, which investigate the influence of the presentation of the scenario on the estimation of probabilities: Is the same scenario perceived differently, if presented in a way that emphasises combinedness? For example, one could simply ask somebody to estimate the probability that one of his close relatives will die within a year (uncombined) or one could ask him to list all his close relatives, their age and state of health first (combined). After all, a lot of probabilities with real-life applications are combined.
Note that I am not interested in which of the estimates is more accurate, only which one is higher.