a concern i have in this situation ... and why i posed the question is as
follows
since it is a taste test ... Ss will taste the pizzas ... so, the notion of
just selecting ONE and saying it is different seems not a reasonble scenario
so, what would a resonable guessing scenario be? one might be that ...
after tasting and retasting ... the S says to himself/herself ... i just
cannot make a choice ... i really don't know the difference ... BUT, he/she
has to make a choice ... those are the rules ...
so, if that were the case ... let's say that the strategy he/she adopts is
to flip a mental coin ... if it is heads, call the first pizza SAME ...
and, if tails ... call it DIFFERENT ...
now, if the first turns up heads ... then there is another piece to do the
mental flip for ... so the second piece gets the second flip ... assume it
too is heads ... and is therefore called SAME ...
then, there is NO random choice for the third ... it has to be DIFFERENT
... the third slice decision in this case is NOT independent of the second ...
but, what if the first slice mental flip came up TAILS ... then for it, it
is called the different one ... but automatically and out of the control of
the S are the decisions for the other two ... they are both SAMES
i claim that in this situation ... the decisions for all three are NOT
independent decisions ... therefore, it does not satisfy one of the
conditions for the binomial to be a correct model ...
========
if the strategy were to simply flip a three sided coin ... with sides pizza
slice 1, 2, or 3 ... whichever one the mental flip lands on ... the OTHER
two are fixed choices and out of the control of the S ...
some of the choices DEPEND on what has already transpired
At 03:00 PM 2/23/01 -0600, Mike Granaas wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, dennis roberts wrote:
>
><snip some details of the experiment>
>>
>> but, what is really the p for success? q for failure?
>>
>> is this situation of n=10 ... really a true binomial case where p for
>> success is 1/3 under the assumption that simple guessing were the way in
>> which tasters made their decisions?
>
>It's late on friday so I could be missing something, but it seems
>reasonable that p = 1/3 in this case. If the taster were to simply walk
>into the room and point at the middle piece of pizza each trial they
>should be right 1 time in 3. (Unless there is some experimental
>manipulation that keeps the odd piece in one position more frequently than
>would be expected...but I think you specified counterbalancing in your
>question.)
>
>>
>> (as an aside, what would it mean for tasters in this situation to be making
>> their decisions purely based on chance?)
>
>I would interpret it as meaning that the tasters couldn't tell the two
>pizza brands apart. They did no better than someone who didn't taste the
>pizza and so were unable to discriminate between to two brands. The
>obivious explanations are that the pizza brands really are the same in all
>ways that matter for taste discrimination, or the tasters were not very
>good at the task.
>
>Michael
>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________
>> dennis roberts, educational psychology, penn state university
>> 208 cedar, AC 8148632401, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> http://roberts.ed.psu.edu/users/droberts/drober~1.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> =================================================================
>> Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
>> the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
>> http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
>> =================================================================
>>
>
>*******************************************************************
>Michael M. Granaas
>Associate Professor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Department of Psychology
>University of South Dakota Phone: (605) 677-5295
>Vermillion, SD 57069 FAX: (605) 677-6604
>*******************************************************************
>All views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily
>reflect those of the University of South Dakota, or the South
>Dakota Board of Regents.
>
>
==============================================================
dennis roberts, penn state university
educational psychology, 8148632401
http://roberts.ed.psu.edu/users/droberts/drober~1.htm
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
