The Psychology of the Monty Hall Problem: Discovering Psychological Mechanisms for Solving a Tenacious Brain Teaser

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Volumn 132, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 3-22

  Krauss, Stefan ^a   Wang, X T ^b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (Germany)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COGNITIVE DEFECT; FEMALE; HUMAN; ILLUSION; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PILOT STUDY; PROBLEM SOLVING; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PSYCHOLOGY;

ADULT; COGNITION DISORDERS; FEMALE; HUMANS; ILLUSIONS; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PILOT PROJECTS; PROBLEM SOLVING; PSYCHOLOGY;

EID: 0037629949     PISSN: 00963445     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.132.1.3     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Aaron, E., & Spivey, M. (1998). Frequency vs. probability formats: Framing the three doors problem. In M. A. Gernsbacher & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Proceedings of the twentieth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 13-18). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Burns, B. D., & Wieth, M. (2002). Misrepresentation of causality in reasoning: The Monty Hall dilemma. Manuscript submitted for publication.
3. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Evans, J. St. B. T., Handley, S. J., Perham, N., Over, D. E., & Thompson, V. A. (2000). Frequency versus probability formats in statistical word problems. Cognition, 77, 197-213.
5. Falk, R. (1992). A closer look at the probabilities of the notorious three prisoners. Cognition, 43, 197-223.
6. Fiedler, K., Brinkmann, B., Betsch, T., & Wild, B. (2000). A sampling approach to biases in conditional probability judgments: Beyond base rate neglect and statistical format. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 399-418.
7. Frazier, K. (1992). "Three door" problem provokes letters, controversy. Skeptical Inquirer, 16, 192-199.
8. Friedman, D. (1998). Monty Hall's three doors: Construction and deconstruction of a choice anomaly. American Economic Review, 88, 933-946.
9. Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 102, 684-704.
10. Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1999). Helping people overcome difficulties in Bayesian reasoning: A reply to Lewis & Keren and Mellers & McGraw. Psychological Review, 106, 425-430.
11. Gigerenzer, G., & Hug, K. (1992). Domain-specific reasoning: Social contracts, cheating and perspective change. Cognition, 43, 127-171.
12. Gilovich, T., Medvec, V. H., & Chen, S. (1995). Commission, omission, and dissonance reduction: Coping with regret in the "Monty Hall" problem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 182-190.
13. Girotto, V., & Gonzales, G. (2001). Solving probabilistic and statistical problems: A matter of information structure and question form. Cognition, 78, 247-276.
14. Goldstein, D. G., Gigerenzer, G., & The ABC Research Group. (1999). The recognition heuristic: How ignorance makes us smart. In Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 37-58). New York: Oxford University Press.
15. Granberg, D., & Brown, T. A. (1995). The Monty Hall dilemma. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 711-723.
16. Granberg, D., & Dorr, N. (1998). Further exploration of two stage decision making in the Monty Hall dilemma. American Journal of Psychology, 111, 561-579.
17. Hell, W., & Heinrichs, C. (2000). Das Monty Hall Dilemma (Ziegenproblem) mit 30 Türen. [The Monty Hall Dilemma with 30 doors]. In D. Vorberg, A. Fuchs, T. Futterer, A. Heinecke, U. Heinrichs, U. Mattler, & S. Töllner (Eds.), TeaP 2000 - Experimentelle Psychologie. Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science Publishers.
18. Hoffrage, U., Gigerenzer, G., Krauss, S., & Martignon, L. (2002). Representation facilitates reasoning: What natural frequencies are and what they are not. Cognition, 84, 343-352.
19. Ichikawa, S. (1989). The role of isomorphic schematic representation in the comprehension of counterintuitive Bayesian problems. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 8, 269-281.
20. Ichikawa, S., & Takeychi, H. (1990). Erroneous beliefs in estimating posterior probability. Behaviormetrika, 27(1), 59-73.
21. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22. Johnson-Laird, P. N., Legrenzi, P., Girotto, V., Legrenzi, M. S., & Caverni, J. P. (1999). Naive probability: A mental model theory of extensional reasoning. Psychological Review, 106, 62-88.
23. Krauss, S., Martignon, L., Hoffrage, U., & Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Bayesian reasoning and natural frequencies: A generalization to complex situations. Manuscript submitted for publication.
24. Mueser, P. R., & Granberg, D. (1999). The Monty Hall Dilemma revisited: Understanding the interaction of problem definition and decision making. Retrieved December 15, 2002, from http://econwpa.wustl.edu:8089/eps/exp/papers/9906/9906001.html
25. Newport, S. (Ed.). (1991). Guinness book of world records. London: HIT Entertainment.
26. Nickerson, R. S. (1996). Ambiguities and unstated assumptions in probabilistic reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 410-433.
27. Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (1994). Inevitable illusions: How mistakes of reason rule our minds (M. Piattelli-Palmarini & K. Botsford, Trans.). New York: Wiley.
28. Posner, G. (1991). Nation's mathematicians guilty of "innumeracy." Skeptical Inquirer, 15, 342-345.
29. Reed, S. K. (1993). A schema-based theory of transfer. In D. K. Detterman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 39-67). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
30. Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21, 1-29.
31. Ross, B. H. (1987). This is like that: The use of earlier problems and the separation of similarity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 13, 629-639.
32. Sedlmeier, P., & Gigerenzer, G. (2001). Teaching Bayesian reasoning in less than two hours. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 380-400.
33. Selvin, S. (1975a). On the Monty Hall problem. American Statistician, 29, 134.
34. Selvin, S. (1975b). A problem in probability. American Statistician, 29, 67.
35. Shimojo, S., & Ichikawa, S. (1989). Intuitive reasoning about probability: Theoretical and experimental analyses of the "problem of three prisoners." Cognition, 32, 1-24.
36. Tierney, J. (1991, July 21). Behind Monty Hall's doors: Puzzle, debate and answer? New York Times, pp. 1, 20.
37. von Randow, G. (1993). Das Ziegenproblem: Denken in Wahrscheinlichkeiten [The goat problem: Thinking in probabilities]. Reinbeck, Germany: Rowohlt Verlag.
38. vos Savant, M. (1990a, September 9). Ask Marilyn. Parade Magazine, p. 15.
39. vos Savant, M. (1990b, December 2). Ask Marilyn. Parade Magazine, p. 25.
40. vos Savant, M. (1991, February 17). Ask Marilyn. Parade Magazine, p. 12.
41. vos Savant, M. (1997). The power of logical thinking. New York: St. Martin's Press.
42. Wang,X.T. (1996). Evolutionary hypotheses of risk-sensitive choice: Age differences and perspective change. Ethology and Sociobiology, 17, 115