The effect of iconicity of visual displays on statistical reasoning: Evidence in favor of the null hypothesis

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 961-968

  Sirota, Miroslav ^a   Kostovičová, Lenka ^b   Juanchich, Marie ^c  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b Institute of Experimental Psychology Slovak Academy of Sciences   (Slovakia)

^c KINGSTON UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bayes factor; Bayesian reasoning; Iconicity; Nested sets; Visual displays

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; BAYES THEOREM; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHYSIOLOGY; THINKING; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; BAYES THEOREM; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; THINKING; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84904509549     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: 15315320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13423-013-0555-4     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Albert, J. (2009). Bayesian computations with R (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
2. Barbey, A. K., & Sloman, S. A. (2007). Base-rate respect: From ecological rationality to dual processes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30, 241-297. doi: 10. 1017/S0140525X07001653.
3. Brase, G. L. (2009). Pictorial representations in statistical reasoning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 369-381. doi: 10. 1002/acp. 1460.
4. Carpenter, P. A., & Shah, P. (1998). A model of the perceptual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4, 75-100. doi: 10. 1037/1076-898X. 4. 2. 75.
5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
6. Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1996). Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty. Cognition, 58, 1-73. doi: 10. 1016/0010-0277(95)00664-8.
7. Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding the new statistics: effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. New York: Routledge.
8. Gaissmaier, W., Wegwarth, O., Skopec, D., Muller, A. S., Broschinski, S., & Politi, M. C. (2012). Numbers can be worth a thousand pictures: Individual differences in understanding graphical and numerical representations of health-related information. Health Psychology, 31, 286-296. doi: 10. 1037/a0024850.
9. Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 102, 684-704. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 102. 4. 684.
10. Girotto, V., & Gonzalez, M. (2001). Solving probabilistic and statistical problems: A matter of information structure and question form. Cognition, 78, 247-276. doi: 10. 1016/S0010-0277(00)00133-5.
11. Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (Eds.). (2008). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
12. Lesage, E., Navarrete, G., & De Neys, W. (2013). Evolutionary modules and Bayesian facilitation: The role of general cognitive resources. Thinking and Reasoning, 19, 27-53. doi: 10. 1080/13546783. 2012. 713177.
13. Mani, K., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1982). The mental representation of spatial descriptions. Memory & Cognition, 10, 181-187. doi: 10. 3758/BF03209220.
14. Morris, C., & Hamilton, D. J. (1965). Aesthetics, signs, and icons. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 25, 356-364.
15. Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867-872. doi: 10. 1016/j. jesp. 2009. 03. 009.
16. Over, D. (2007). The logic of natural sampling. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30, 277-277. doi: 10. 1017/S0140525X07001859.
17. Rouder, J. N., Speckman, P. L., Sun, D., Morey, R. D., & Iverson, G. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 225-237. doi: 10. 3758/PBR. 16. 2. 225.
18. Sedlmeier, P. (1999). Improving statistical reasoning: Theoretical models and practical implications. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
19. Sirota, M., & Juanchich, M. (2011). Role of numeracy and cognitive reflection in Bayesian reasoning with natural frequencies. Studia Psychologica, 53, 151-161.
20. Sirota, M., & Juanchich, M. (2012). Risk communication on shaky ground. Science, 338, 1286-1287. doi: 10. 1126/science. 338. 6112. 1286.
21. Sirota, M., Juanchich, M., & Hagmayer, Y. (2013). Ecological rationality or nested sets? Individual differences in cognitive processing predict Bayesian reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. Advance online publication. doi: 10. 3758/s13423-013-0464-6.
22. Sloman, S. A., Over, D., Slovak, L., & Stibel, J. M. (2003). Frequency illusions and other fallacies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91, 296-309. doi: 10. 1016/S0749-5978(03)00021-9.
23. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293-315. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 90. 4. 293.
24. Vallée-Tourangeau, F., & Krüsi Penney, A. (2005). The impact of external representation in a rule discovery task. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17, 820-834. doi: 10. 1080/09541440440000249.
25. Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36, 1-48.
26. Yamagishi, K. (2003). Facilitating normative judgments of conditional probability: Frequency or nested sets? Experimental Psychology, 50, 97-106. doi: 10. 1027/1618-3169. 50. 2. 97.