. 2013 Sep 27;4:646. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00646

Table 1.

Tests of the relative acquisition frequencies predicted by the Priority Heuristic (PH) and modifications of expected utility theory (Expectation Model; EM) in Experiment 1.

Acquisition frequencies compared	Prediction		Data		Model supported
	PH	EM	Ms (%)	Test statistic
O vs. P	O_{r = 1} > P_{r = 1}	O_{r = 1} = P_{r = 1}	57.1 > 42.9	t₍₄₇₉₎ = 12.7, p = 0.001	Priority heuristic
	O_{r = 3} > P_{r = 3}	O_{r = 3} = P_{r = 3}	55.5 > 44.5	t₍₂₃₉₎ = 6.8, p = 0.001	Priority heuristic
O^max vs. O^min	O^max_{r = 1} < O^min_{r = 1}	O^max_{r = 1} = O^min_{r = 1}	28.2 = 28.8	t₍₄₇₉₎ = −0.81, p = 0.42	Expectation model
	O^max_{r = 2} < O^min_{r = 2}	O^max_{r = 2} = O^min_{r = 2}	30.3 > 25.2	t₍₂₃₉₎ = 4.8, p = 0.001	Neither
P^max vs. P^min	P^max_{r = 2} < P^min_{r = 2}	P^min_{r = 2} = P^max_{r = 2}	25.5 > 19.0	t₍₂₃₉₎ = 4.7, p = 0.001	Neither
	P^max_{r = 3} < P^min_{r = 3}	P^min_{r = 3} = P^max_{r = 3}	24.2 > 19.6	t₍₂₃₉₎ = 3.3, p = 0.001	Neither
O^max_{r = 1}, O^max_{r = 2} vs. O^max_{r = 3}	O^max_{r = 1} < O^max_{r = 3}	O^max_{r = 1} = O^max_{r = 3}	28.2 < 31.2	t₍₇₁₈₎ = −3.8, p = 0.001	Priority heuristic
	O^max_{r = 2} < O^max_{r = 3}	O^max_{r = 2} = O^max_{r = 3}	30.3 = 31.2	t₍₄₇₈₎ = −1.0, p = 0.30	Expectation model
P^min_{r = 1} vs. P^min_{r = 2}, P^min_{r = 3}	P^min_{r = 1} < P^min_{r = 2}	P^min_{r = 1} = P^min_{r = 2}	22.7 > 19.0	t₍₇₁₈₎ = 3.5, p = 0.001	Neither
	P^min_{r = 1} < P^min_{r = 3}	P^min_{r = 1} = P^min_{r = 3}	22.7 > 19.6	t₍₇₁₈₎ = 2.9, p = 0.004	Neither

O, outcomes; P, probabilities. Maximum and minimum outcomes and their probabilities are denoted as O^max, O^min, P^max, and P^min, respectively. The rs in the subscripts refer to one- (r = 1), two- (r = 2), and three-reason (r = 3) choices.