Cargando…
Why Can Only 24% Solve Bayesian Reasoning Problems in Natural Frequencies: Frequency Phobia in Spite of Probability Blindness
For more than 20 years, research has proven the beneficial effect of natural frequencies when it comes to solving Bayesian reasoning tasks (Gigerenzer and Hoffrage, 1995). In a recent meta-analysis, McDowell and Jacobs (2017) showed that presenting a task in natural frequency format increases perfor...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6194348/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30369891 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01833 |
_version_ | 1783364218842513408 |
---|---|
author | Weber, Patrick Binder, Karin Krauss, Stefan |
author_facet | Weber, Patrick Binder, Karin Krauss, Stefan |
author_sort | Weber, Patrick |
collection | PubMed |
description | For more than 20 years, research has proven the beneficial effect of natural frequencies when it comes to solving Bayesian reasoning tasks (Gigerenzer and Hoffrage, 1995). In a recent meta-analysis, McDowell and Jacobs (2017) showed that presenting a task in natural frequency format increases performance rates to 24% compared to only 4% when the same task is presented in probability format. Nevertheless, on average three quarters of participants in their meta-analysis failed to obtain the correct solution for such a task in frequency format. In this paper, we present an empirical study on what participants typically do wrong when confronted with natural frequencies. We found that many of them did not actually use natural frequencies for their calculations, but translated them back into complicated probabilities instead. This switch from the intuitive presentation format to a less intuitive calculation format will be discussed within the framework of psychological theories (e.g., the Einstellung effect). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6194348 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-61943482018-10-26 Why Can Only 24% Solve Bayesian Reasoning Problems in Natural Frequencies: Frequency Phobia in Spite of Probability Blindness Weber, Patrick Binder, Karin Krauss, Stefan Front Psychol Psychology For more than 20 years, research has proven the beneficial effect of natural frequencies when it comes to solving Bayesian reasoning tasks (Gigerenzer and Hoffrage, 1995). In a recent meta-analysis, McDowell and Jacobs (2017) showed that presenting a task in natural frequency format increases performance rates to 24% compared to only 4% when the same task is presented in probability format. Nevertheless, on average three quarters of participants in their meta-analysis failed to obtain the correct solution for such a task in frequency format. In this paper, we present an empirical study on what participants typically do wrong when confronted with natural frequencies. We found that many of them did not actually use natural frequencies for their calculations, but translated them back into complicated probabilities instead. This switch from the intuitive presentation format to a less intuitive calculation format will be discussed within the framework of psychological theories (e.g., the Einstellung effect). Frontiers Media S.A. 2018-10-12 /pmc/articles/PMC6194348/ /pubmed/30369891 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01833 Text en Copyright © 2018 Weber, Binder and Krauss. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Psychology Weber, Patrick Binder, Karin Krauss, Stefan Why Can Only 24% Solve Bayesian Reasoning Problems in Natural Frequencies: Frequency Phobia in Spite of Probability Blindness |
title | Why Can Only 24% Solve Bayesian Reasoning Problems in Natural Frequencies: Frequency Phobia in Spite of Probability Blindness |
title_full | Why Can Only 24% Solve Bayesian Reasoning Problems in Natural Frequencies: Frequency Phobia in Spite of Probability Blindness |
title_fullStr | Why Can Only 24% Solve Bayesian Reasoning Problems in Natural Frequencies: Frequency Phobia in Spite of Probability Blindness |
title_full_unstemmed | Why Can Only 24% Solve Bayesian Reasoning Problems in Natural Frequencies: Frequency Phobia in Spite of Probability Blindness |
title_short | Why Can Only 24% Solve Bayesian Reasoning Problems in Natural Frequencies: Frequency Phobia in Spite of Probability Blindness |
title_sort | why can only 24% solve bayesian reasoning problems in natural frequencies: frequency phobia in spite of probability blindness |
topic | Psychology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6194348/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30369891 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01833 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT weberpatrick whycanonly24solvebayesianreasoningproblemsinnaturalfrequenciesfrequencyphobiainspiteofprobabilityblindness AT binderkarin whycanonly24solvebayesianreasoningproblemsinnaturalfrequenciesfrequencyphobiainspiteofprobabilityblindness AT kraussstefan whycanonly24solvebayesianreasoningproblemsinnaturalfrequenciesfrequencyphobiainspiteofprobabilityblindness |