Rarity, pseudodiagnosticity and Bayesian reasoning

Thinking and Reasoning

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 209-230

  Feeney, Aidan ^a   Evans, Jonathan ^b   Venn, Simon ^b  

^a DURHAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PLYMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bayesian reasoning; Diagnosticity; Hypothesis testing; Pseudodiagnosticity; Rarity

Indexed keywords

EID: 46749111412     PISSN: 13546783     EISSN: 14640708     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13546780801934549     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Doherty, M. E., Chadwick, R., Garavan, H., Barr, D., & Mynatt, C. R. (1996). On people's understanding of the diagnostic implications of probabilistic data. Memory and Cognition, 24, 644-654.
2. Doherty, M. E., Mynatt, C. R., Tweney, R. D., & Schiavo, M. D. (1979). Pseudodiagnosticity. Acta Psychologica, 49, 111-121.
3. Edwards, W. (1968). Conservatism in human information processing. In B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.), Formal representation of human judgement (pp. 17-52). New York: Wiley.
4. Evans, J. St. B. T. (2007). Hypothetical thinking: Dual processes in thinking and judgement. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
5. Evans, J. St. B. T., & Over, D. E. (1996a). Rationality in the selection task: Epistemic utility versus uncertainty reduction. Psychological Review, 103, 356-363.
6. Evans, J. St. B. T., & Over, D. E. (1996b). Rationality and reasoning. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
7. Evans, J. St. B. T., Venn, S., & Feeney, A. (2002). Implicit and explicit processes in an hypothesis testing task. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 31-46.
8. Feeney, A., Evans, J. St. B. T., & Clibbens, J. (2000). Background beliefs and evidence interpretation. Thinking and Reasoning, 6, 97-124.
9. Feeney, A., Handley, S. J., & Kentridge, R. (2003). Deciding between accounts of the selection task: A reply to Oaksford. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 1079-1088.
10. Gigerenzer, G., Hell, W., & Blank, H. (1988). Presentation and content: The use of base rates as a continuous variable. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 513-525.
11. Good, I. J. (1950). Probability and the weighing of evidence. New York: Griffin.
12. Klayman, J., & Ha, Y-W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information. Psychological Review, 94, 211-228.
13. Koehler, J. J. (1996). The base rate fallacy reconsidered: Descriptive, normative, and methodological challenges. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 1-53.
14. Lindley, D. V. (1956). On a measure of the information provided by an experiment. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 27, 986-1005.
15. McKenzie, C. R. M. (1998). Taking into account the strength of an alternative hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24, 771-792.
16. McKenzie, C. R. M., & Mikkelsen, L. A. (2000). The psychological side of Hempel's paradox of confirmation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7, 360-366.
17. McKenzie, C.R.M., & Mikkelsen, L.A. (2007). A Bayesian view of covariation assessment. Cognitive Psychology, 54, 33-61.
18. Mynatt, C. R., Doherty, M. E., & Dragan, W. (1993). Information relevance, working memory and the consideration of alternative. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46A, 759-778.
19. Nelson, J. D. (2005). Finding useful questions: On Bayesian diagnosticky, probability, impact, and information gain. Psychological Review, 112, 979-999.
20. Oaksford, M. (2002). Predicting the results of reasoning experiments: Reply to Feeney and Handley. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55 A, 793-798.
21. Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1994). A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review, 101, 608-631.
22. Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2003). Optimal data selection: Revision, review and re-evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 289-318.
23. Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2007). Bayesian rationality. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
24. Oberauer, K., Weidenfeld, A., & Hörnig, R. (2004). Logical reasoning and probabilities. A comprehensive test of Oaksford and Chater (2001). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 521-527.
25. Sperber, D., Cara, F., & Girotto, V. (1995). Relevance explains the selection task. Cognition, 57, 31-95.
26. Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
27. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998). Who uses base rates and P(D/~H)? An analysis of individual differences. Memory & Cognition, 26, 161-179.
28. Wason, P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 273-281.
29. Wells, G. L., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1980). On measuring the diagnosticky of eyewitness nonidentifieations. Psychological Review, 88, 776-784.