We quantify the relative error as 1 −
perceived audience size
actual audience size
.
The median relative error is 0.73, meaning the median estimate was just 27% of the actual audience size. In other words,
the median participants underestimated their actual audience
size by a factor of four.
Participants in the general survey also underestimated their
audiences (Figure 1, right column). The median perceived
audience size in the general survey was 50 (mean = 137,
sd = 236), while the median actual audience (number of
friends who saw any post the user produced in the previous
month) was 180 (mean = 283, sd = 302). The median
relative error was 0.68, indicating that participants underestimated their general audience by roughly a factor of three.
Figure 1 (bottom row) shows the distribution of errors in both
surveys. In both cases, participants tended to underestimate
their audiences, and there was greater variance in the general
version of the survey.
We quantify the relative error as 1 −perceived audience sizeactual audience size.The median relative error is 0.73, meaning the median estimate was just 27% of the actual audience size. In other words,the median participants underestimated their actual audiencesize by a factor of four.Participants in the general survey also underestimated theiraudiences (Figure 1, right column). The median perceivedaudience size in the general survey was 50 (mean = 137,sd = 236), while the median actual audience (number offriends who saw any post the user produced in the previousmonth) was 180 (mean = 283, sd = 302). The medianrelative error was 0.68, indicating that participants underestimated their general audience by roughly a factor of three.Figure 1 (bottom row) shows the distribution of errors in bothsurveys. In both cases, participants tended to underestimatetheir audiences, and there was greater variance in the generalversion of the survey.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
