Causal model and sampling approaches to reducing base rate neglect

Cooperative Minds: Social Interaction and Group Dynamics - Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, CogSci 2013

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 567-572

  Hayes, Brett K ^a   Newell, Ben R ^a   Hawkins, Guy E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

Base rate neglect; Bayesian judgment; Belief updating; Causal reasoning; Sequential sampling

Indexed keywords

BASE RATE; BASE RATE NEGLECT; BAYESIAN; BAYESIAN JUDGMENT; BELIEF UPDATING; CAUSAL EXPLANATIONS; CAUSAL MODELING; CAUSAL REASONING; FALSE POSITIVE; SEQUENTIAL SAMPLING;

EID: 84897602409     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (14)

1. Barbey, A. K., & Sloman, S. A. (2007). Base rate respect: From ecological rationality to dual processes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30, 241-297.
2. Cokely, E. T., Galesic, M., Schulz, E., Ghazal, S., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2012). Measuring risk literacy: The Berlin numeracy test. Judgment and Decision Making, 7, 25-47.
3. Eddy, D. M. (1982). Probabilistic reasoning in clinical medicine. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 249-267). Cambridge, UK: CUP.
4. Evans, J. S. 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. Fernbach, P. M., Darlow, A., & Sloman, S. A. (2011). Asymmetries in predictive and diagnostic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 168-185.
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. Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 102, 684-704.
8. Hogarth, R. M., & Soyer, E. (2011). Sequentially simulated outcomes: Kind experience versus nontransparent description. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 434-463.
9. Krynski, T. R., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). The role of causality in judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 430-450.
10. Lejarraga, T. (2010). When experience is better than description: Time delays and complexity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23,100-116.
11. Rakow, T. R., Demes, K., & Newell, B. R. (2008). Biased samples not mode of presentation: Re-examining the apparent underweighting of rare events in experience-based choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106, 168-179.
12. Sedlmeier, P. (1999). Improving statistical reasoning: Theoretical models and practical applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Sedlmeier, P., & Gigerenzer, G. (2001). Teaching Bayesian reasoning in less than two hours. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 380-400.
14. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.