Sets or frequencies? How to help people solve conditional probability problems

Autores
Moro, Rodrigo; Bodanza, Gustavo Adrian; Freidin, Esteban
Año de publicación
2011
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Since the 1970s, the Heuristics and Biases Program in Cognitive Psychology has shown that people do not reason correctly about conditional probability problems. In the 1990s, however, evolutionary psychologists discovered that if the same problems are presented in a different way, people's performance greatly improves. Two explanations have been offered to account for this facilitation effect: the natural frequency hypothesis and the nested-set hypothesis. The empirical evidence on this debate is mixed. We review the literature pointing out some methodological issues that we take into account in our own present experiments. We interpret our results as suggesting that when the mentioned methodological problems are tackled, the evidence seems to favour the natural frequency hypothesis and to go against the nested-set hypothesis. © 2011 Psychology Press Ltd.
Fil: Moro, Rodrigo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur; Argentina
Fil: Bodanza, Gustavo Adrian. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur; Argentina
Fil: Freidin, Esteban. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Centro de Recursos Naturales Renovables de la Zona Semiárida. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Centro de Recursos Naturales Renovables de la Zona Semiárida; Argentina
Materia
Base-Rate Neglect
Bayesian Inference
Conditional Probability Problems
Evolutionary Psychology Programme
Frequency Effect
Heuristic And Biases Programme
Natural Frequency Hypothesis
Nested-Set Hypothesis
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/65683
Acceder
id CONICETDig_c6be7b28bf9a1405cd72c46137d702c3
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/65683
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Sets or frequencies? How to help people solve conditional probability problemsMoro, RodrigoBodanza, Gustavo AdrianFreidin, EstebanBase-Rate NeglectBayesian InferenceConditional Probability ProblemsEvolutionary Psychology ProgrammeFrequency EffectHeuristic And Biases ProgrammeNatural Frequency HypothesisNested-Set Hypothesishttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/5.1https://purl.org/becyt/ford/5Since the 1970s, the Heuristics and Biases Program in Cognitive Psychology has shown that people do not reason correctly about conditional probability problems. In the 1990s, however, evolutionary psychologists discovered that if the same problems are presented in a different way, people's performance greatly improves. Two explanations have been offered to account for this facilitation effect: the natural frequency hypothesis and the nested-set hypothesis. The empirical evidence on this debate is mixed. We review the literature pointing out some methodological issues that we take into account in our own present experiments. We interpret our results as suggesting that when the mentioned methodological problems are tackled, the evidence seems to favour the natural frequency hypothesis and to go against the nested-set hypothesis. © 2011 Psychology Press Ltd.Fil: Moro, Rodrigo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur; ArgentinaFil: Bodanza, Gustavo Adrian. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur; ArgentinaFil: Freidin, Esteban. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Centro de Recursos Naturales Renovables de la Zona Semiárida. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Centro de Recursos Naturales Renovables de la Zona Semiárida; ArgentinaTaylor & Francis2011-11info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/65683Moro, Rodrigo; Bodanza, Gustavo Adrian; Freidin, Esteban; Sets or frequencies? How to help people solve conditional probability problems; Taylor & Francis; Journal of Cognitive Psychology; 23; 7; 11-2011; 843-8572044-592XCONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20445911.2011.579072info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1080/20445911.2011.579072info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-10-15T14:48:20Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/65683instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-10-15 14:48:21.022CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Sets or frequencies? How to help people solve conditional probability problems
title Sets or frequencies? How to help people solve conditional probability problems
spellingShingle Sets or frequencies? How to help people solve conditional probability problems
Moro, Rodrigo
Base-Rate Neglect
Bayesian Inference
Conditional Probability Problems
Evolutionary Psychology Programme
Frequency Effect
Heuristic And Biases Programme
Natural Frequency Hypothesis
Nested-Set Hypothesis
title_short Sets or frequencies? How to help people solve conditional probability problems
title_full Sets or frequencies? How to help people solve conditional probability problems
title_fullStr Sets or frequencies? How to help people solve conditional probability problems
title_full_unstemmed Sets or frequencies? How to help people solve conditional probability problems
title_sort Sets or frequencies? How to help people solve conditional probability problems
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Moro, Rodrigo
Bodanza, Gustavo Adrian
Freidin, Esteban
author Moro, Rodrigo
author_facet Moro, Rodrigo
Bodanza, Gustavo Adrian
Freidin, Esteban
author_role author
author2 Bodanza, Gustavo Adrian
Freidin, Esteban
author2_role author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Base-Rate Neglect
Bayesian Inference
Conditional Probability Problems
Evolutionary Psychology Programme
Frequency Effect
Heuristic And Biases Programme
Natural Frequency Hypothesis
Nested-Set Hypothesis
topic Base-Rate Neglect
Bayesian Inference
Conditional Probability Problems
Evolutionary Psychology Programme
Frequency Effect
Heuristic And Biases Programme
Natural Frequency Hypothesis
Nested-Set Hypothesis
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/5.1
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/5
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Since the 1970s, the Heuristics and Biases Program in Cognitive Psychology has shown that people do not reason correctly about conditional probability problems. In the 1990s, however, evolutionary psychologists discovered that if the same problems are presented in a different way, people's performance greatly improves. Two explanations have been offered to account for this facilitation effect: the natural frequency hypothesis and the nested-set hypothesis. The empirical evidence on this debate is mixed. We review the literature pointing out some methodological issues that we take into account in our own present experiments. We interpret our results as suggesting that when the mentioned methodological problems are tackled, the evidence seems to favour the natural frequency hypothesis and to go against the nested-set hypothesis. © 2011 Psychology Press Ltd.
Fil: Moro, Rodrigo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur; Argentina
Fil: Bodanza, Gustavo Adrian. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur; Argentina
Fil: Freidin, Esteban. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Centro de Recursos Naturales Renovables de la Zona Semiárida. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Centro de Recursos Naturales Renovables de la Zona Semiárida; Argentina
description Since the 1970s, the Heuristics and Biases Program in Cognitive Psychology has shown that people do not reason correctly about conditional probability problems. In the 1990s, however, evolutionary psychologists discovered that if the same problems are presented in a different way, people's performance greatly improves. Two explanations have been offered to account for this facilitation effect: the natural frequency hypothesis and the nested-set hypothesis. The empirical evidence on this debate is mixed. We review the literature pointing out some methodological issues that we take into account in our own present experiments. We interpret our results as suggesting that when the mentioned methodological problems are tackled, the evidence seems to favour the natural frequency hypothesis and to go against the nested-set hypothesis. © 2011 Psychology Press Ltd.
publishDate 2011
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2011-11
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/65683
Moro, Rodrigo; Bodanza, Gustavo Adrian; Freidin, Esteban; Sets or frequencies? How to help people solve conditional probability problems; Taylor & Francis; Journal of Cognitive Psychology; 23; 7; 11-2011; 843-857
2044-592X
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/65683
identifier_str_mv Moro, Rodrigo; Bodanza, Gustavo Adrian; Freidin, Esteban; Sets or frequencies? How to help people solve conditional probability problems; Taylor & Francis; Journal of Cognitive Psychology; 23; 7; 11-2011; 843-857
2044-592X
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20445911.2011.579072
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1080/20445911.2011.579072
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Taylor & Francis
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Taylor & Francis
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1846083002909589504
score 13.22299

Publicaciones similares